Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35568933›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2022

Landscape of clinical trial activity focusing on Indigenous health in Australia: an overview using clinical trial registry data from 2008-2018.

Ge Xu, Danai Modi, Kylie E Hunter, Lisa M Askie, Lisa M Jamieson, Alex Brown, Anna Lene Seidler

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. The changing landscape of clinical trials in Australia.The Medical journal of Australia · 2023
    Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Ge XuNHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, the University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, 2050, Australia.
Danai ModiNHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, the University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, 2050, Australia.
Kylie E HunterNHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, the University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, 2050, Australia.
Lisa M AskieNHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, the University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, 2050, Australia.
Lisa M JamiesonAustralian Research Centre for Population Oral Health, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.
Alex BrownSouth Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, Adelaide, Australia.
Anna Lene SeidlerNHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, the University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, 2050, Australia. lene.seidler@sydney.edu.au.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (hereafter respectfully referred to as Indigenous Australians) represent about 3% of the total Australian population. Major health disparities exist between Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Australians. To address this, it is vital to understand key health priorities and knowledge gaps in the current landscape of clinical trial activity focusing on Indigenous health in Australia.

methodsAustralian-based clinical trials registered on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry or ClinicalTrials.gov from 2008 to 2018 were analysed. Australian clinical trials with and without a focus on Indigenous health were compared in terms of total numbers, participant size, conditions studied, design, intervention type and funding source.

resultsOf the 9206 clinical trials included, 139 (1.5%) focused on Indigenous health, with no proportional increase in Indigenous trials over the decade (p = 0.30). Top conditions studied in Indigenous-focused trials were mental health (n = 35, 28%), cardiovascular disease (n = 20, 20%) and infection (n = 16, 16%). Compared to General Australian trials, Indigenous-focused trials more frequently studied ear conditions (OR 20.26, 95% CI 10.32-37.02, p < 0.001), infection (OR 3.11, 95% CI 1.88-4.85, p < 0.001) and reproductive health (OR 2.59, 95% CI 1.50-4.15, p < 0.001), and less of musculoskeletal conditions (OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.00-0.37, p < 0.001), anaesthesiology (OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.01-0.69, p = 0.021) and surgery (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.01-0.73, p = 0.027). For intervention types, Indigenous trials focused more on prevention (n = 48, 36%) and screening (n = 18, 13%). They were far less involved in treatment (n = 72, 52%) as an intervention than General Australian trials (n = 6785, 75%), and were less likely to be blinded (n = 48, 35% vs n = 4273, 47%) or have industry funding (n = 9, 7% vs 1587, 17%).

conclusionsTrials with an Indigenous focus differed from General Australian trials in the conditions studied, design and funding source. The presented findings may inform research prioritisation and alleviate the substantial burden of disease for Indigenous population.

Indexed as

Health Services, IndigenousAustraliaAustralian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander PeoplesHumansMental HealthReferral and ConsultationRegistriesAustraliaBurden of diseaseClinical trial registrationIndigenous healthMinority healthPopulation healthResearch prioritisationUnderserved

Identifiers

PMID35568933
PMCPMC9107126

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.