ArticleIndian journal of ophthalmology2023
Knowledge and perception of health-care professionals on clinical trials in India: A pan-Indian cross-sectional survey.
Article in Indian journal of ophthalmology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Stakeholder perception of quality management of investigator-initiated clinical trials.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of the study was to evaluate the knowledge and perception of health-care professionals (HCPs), such as doctors/surgeons, pharmacists, nurses, optometrists, and lab technicians, on clinical trials (CTs) in India. Methods: The study was a pan-Indian cross-sectional survey initiated by the Indian Ophthalmology Clinical Trial Network (IOCTN) by using a previously validated questionnaire for three months of data collection. An online survey was used to record information regarding demographics, CT knowledge, and CT perception among HCPs. Results: A total of 630 responses were recorded from HCPs: 207 doctors and surgeons, 159 pharmacists, and 264 laboratory technicians, nurses, and optometrists across India. Over 90% of HCPs had a clear knowledge on the purpose of CTs, the informed consent (IC) process, ethical approval by the Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI). About 80% and 90% were aware of confidentiality of patients, voluntariness of participation, and good clinical practice. Surprisingly, less than 50% had lesser knowledge regarding monetary incentives of CT participants (CTPs). A slightly positive perception was observed regarding the potential benefits of CTPs, compensation related to injury, and importance of obtaining IC. Less than 50% had a negative perception that monetary compensation to CTPs led to bias and deprivation of standard treatments. However, no significant difference was observed between other aspects of demographics and perception regarding CTs. Conclusion: We observed doctors and surgeons to be having the highest regarding CTs, followed by pharmacists. The survey highlighted the necessity of scheduling awareness programs among the HCPs, which would improve their misconceptions and perception of CTs while interacting with patients for CT enrollment.
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.