Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31455366›Full record

ArticleTrials2019

An analysis of deficiencies in the data of interventional drug trials registered with Clinical Trials Registry - India.

Mounika Pillamarapu, Abhilash Mohan, Gayatri Saberwal

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Mounika PillamarapuInstitute of Bioinformatics and Applied Biotechnology, Biotech Park, Electronics City Phase 1, Bengaluru, Karnataka, 560100, India.
Abhilash MohanInstitute of Bioinformatics and Applied Biotechnology, Biotech Park, Electronics City Phase 1, Bengaluru, Karnataka, 560100, India.
Gayatri SaberwalInstitute of Bioinformatics and Applied Biotechnology, Biotech Park, Electronics City Phase 1, Bengaluru, Karnataka, 560100, India. gayatri@ibab.ac.in.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2410-1431

Funding

Department of IT, BT and S&T of the Government of Karnataka Not applicable
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical Trials Registry - India (CTRI) was established in July 2007 and today hosts thousands of trials, a significant fraction of them registered in the last couple of years. We wished to undertake an up-to-date analysis of specific fields of the registered trials. In doing so we discovered problems with the quality of the data, which we describe in this paper.

methodsWe downloaded CTRI records and reformatted the data into an SQLite database, which we then queried. We also accessed ClinicalTrials.gov records as needed.

resultsWe discovered various categories of problems with the data in the CTRI database, including (1) a lack of clarity in the classification of Types of Study, (2) internal inconsistencies, (3) incomplete or non-standard information, (4) missing data, (5) variations in names or classification, and (6) incomplete or incorrect details of ethics committees. For most of these problems, error rates have been calculated, over time. Most were found to be in single digits, although others were significantly higher. We suggest how data quality in future editions of CTRI could be improved, including (1) a more elaborate and structured way of classifying the Type of Study, (2) the use of logic rules to prevent internal inconsistencies, (3) less use of free text fields and greater use of drop-down menus, (4) more fields to be made compulsory, (5) the pre-registration of individuals' and organizations' names and their subsequent selection from drop-down menus while registering a trial, and (6) more information about each ethics committee, including (a) its address and (b) linking the name of the trial site to the relevant ethics committee. As we discuss problems with the data of specific fields, we also examine - where possible - the quality of the data in the corresponding fields in ClinicalTrials.gov, the largest clinical trial registry in the world.

conclusionsIt is a scientific and ethical obligation to correctly record all information pertaining to each trial run in India. CTRI is a valuable database that has proved its worth in terms of improving the record of trials in the country. The suggestions made herein would improve it further.

Indexed as

Data AccuracyDrug TherapyResearch DesignClinical Trials as TopicHumansIndiaRegistriesTreatment OutcomeClinical trialsClinicalTrials.govCTRIData integrityError ratesIndiaMissing data

Identifiers

PMID31455366
PMCPMC6712861

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.