ArticleOpen forum infectious diseases2019
A Decade On: Systematic Review of ClinicalTrials.gov Infectious Disease Trials, 2007-2017.
Article in Open forum infectious diseases, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cardiac Toxicity in the Treatment of Light Chain Amyloidosis: Systematic Review of Clinical Studies.Current drug safety · 2024Pooled it
- Fighting for recovery on multiple fronts: The past, present, and future of clinical trials for spinal cord injury.Frontiers in cellular neuroscience · 2022Pooled it
- Three decades of clinical trials in Portuguese-speaking Africa: a comprehensive scoping review protocol.BMJ open · 2026Article
- The landscape of investigator-initiated oncology trials conducted in mainland China during the past decade (2010-2019).Cancer innovation · 2023Review
- Clinical trials and tribulations: lessons from spinal cord injury studies registered on ClinicalTrials.gov.Spinal cord · 2021Article
- Pandemic treatments on trial: the bigger picture.The European respiratory journal · 2020Article
- Automating the Transformation of Free-Text Clinical Problems into SNOMED CT Expressions.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2020Article
- The worldwide clinical trial research response to the COVID-19 pandemic - the first 100 days.F1000ResearchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRegistration of interventional trials of Food and Drug Administration-regulated drug and biological products and devices became a legal requirement in 2007; the vast majority of these trials are registered in ClinicalTrials.gov. An analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov offers an opportunity to define the clinical research landscape; here we analyze 10 years of infectious disease (ID) clinical trial research.
methodsBeginning with 166 415 interventional trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov from 2007-2017, ID trials were selected by study conditions and interventions. Relevance to ID was confirmed through manual review, resulting in 13 707 ID trials and 152 708 non-ID trials.
resultsID-related trials represented 6.9%-9.9% of all trials with no significant trend over time. ID trials tended to be more focused on treatment and prevention, with a focus on testing drugs, biologics, and vaccines. ID trials tended to be large, randomized, and nonblinded with a greater degree of international enrollment. Industry was the primary funding source for 45.2% of ID trials. Compared with the global burden of disease, human immunodeficiency virus/AIDS and hepatitis C trials were overrepresented, and lower respiratory tract infection trials were underrepresented. Hepatitis C trials fluctuated, keeping with a wave of new drug development. Influenza vaccine trials peaked during the 2009 H1N1 swine influenza outbreak.
conclusionsThis study presents the most comprehensive characterization of ID clinical trials over the past decade. These results help define how clinical research aligns with clinical need. Temporal trends reflect changes in disease epidemiology and the impact of scientific discovery and market forces. Periodic review of ID clinical trials can help identify gaps and serve as a mechanism to realign resources.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.