ArticleTherapeutic innovation & regulatory science2021
Investigator Initiated Clinical Trials (IICTs): A Systematic Search in Registries to Compare the Czech Republic and Portugal in Terms of Funding Policies and Scientific Outcomes.
Article in Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring the publication gap in pediatric randomized clinical trials: completed vs. uncompleted pediatric clinical trials.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- A qualitative study on the management system for investigator-initiated studies in healthcare institutions in Beijing, China.Health research policy and systems · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesClinical trials provide one of the highest levels of evidence to support medical practice. Investigator initiated clinical trials (IICTs) answer relevant questions in clinical practice that may not be addressed by industry. For the first time, two European Countries are compared in terms of IICTs, respective funders and publications, envisaging to inspire others to use similar indicators to assess clinical research outcomes.
methodsA retrospective systematic search of registered IICTs from 2004 to 2017, using four clinical trials registries was carried out in two European countries with similar population, GDP, HDI and medical schools but with different governmental models to fund clinical research. Each IICT was screened for sponsors, funders, type of intervention and associated publications, once completed.
resultsIICTs involving the Czech Republic and Portugal were n = 439 (42% with hospitals as sponsors) and n = 328 (47% with universities as sponsors), respectively. The Czech Republic and Portuguese funding agencies supported respectively 61 and 27 IICTs. Among these, trials with medicinal products represent 52% in Czech Republic and 4% in Portugal. In the first, a higher percentage of IICTs' publications in high impact factor journals with national investigators as authors was observed, when compared to Portugal (75% vs 15%).
conclusionThe better performance in clinical research by Czech Republic might be related to the existence of specific and periodic funding for clinical research, although further data are still needed to confirm this relationship. In upcoming years, the indicators used herein might be useful to tracking clinical research outcomes in these and other European countries.
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.