ArticlePloS one2023
Representation from India in multinational, interventional, phase 2 or 3 trials registered in Clinical Trials Registry-India: A cross-sectional study.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- The implications of waiving local clinical trials for drugs in India: a double-edged sword?The Lancet regional health. Southeast Asia · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In multinational trials that have run in India, we wished to determine whether there was too much (60% or higher) recruitment from India. We downloaded all trial records from Clinical Trials Registry-India, CTRI, and stored them in a local SQLite database. We queried records registered in a recent 8-year period, ie 2013-2020 and evaluated the fraction of local participants in interventional Phase 2 or Phase 3 studies. 62 trials were completed, with completion dates available. Five trials (8%) had 60% or more planned recruitment from India. Four of the five (7% of 62) had a foreign sponsor, and therefore there was an unfair burden-benefit ratio on the Indian population. Seven trials (11%), of which six (10% of 62) had foreign sponsors, had 60% or more (of the total) actual recruitment from India, and for two trials (both with foreign sponsors), the data were meaningless. There were 362 studies that were listed as not completed, although, given their start date and estimated duration, some of them ought to have been. Twenty five cases (7% of 362) had 60% or more planned recruitment from India. Of these, 18 (5% of 362) had foreign sponsors and were potentially problematic. Even allowing for some delays in completion, 128 (35% of 362) studies ought to have been completed by the time of our study. As such, we identified several problematic trials for which the planned recruitment from India in multinational studies was 60% or more. We also identified trials in which the actual recruitment was significantly higher than the planned recruitment. Further, the records of several studies that were probably completed were not updated in CTRI in a timely manner. The Indian drug regulator needs to be particularly alert to the planned, or actual, over-recruitment of participants from India. Further, CTRI, alone or in collaboration with the regulator, needs to ensure that multinational trial records for the enrollment fields in particular are updated, in a timely manner.
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.