ArticlePerspectives in clinical research
Investigator knowledge, awareness, and registrations of academic clinical trials with the Clinical Trial Registry of India: An observational study.
Article in Perspectives in clinical research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Establishing a biomedical and health research unit in hospital setting: Overcoming barriers to translational research in India - A case study.Perspectives in clinical researchReview
- Investigator initiatives for academic trials: Dilemmas and difficulties.Perspectives in clinical researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: In 2019, the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) introduced the New Drugs and Clinical Trials Rules 2019 (NDCTR), which separated the research guidelines for "Clinical Trials" and "Biomedical and Health Research." As a result, guidelines issued by Methodology: The study was conducted in two phases after obtaining approval from the Institutional Ethics Committee (EC) of three tertiary care hospitals in Mumbai. In the first phase, the number of ACTs was assessed from the clinical trial registry India website, while the number of registered and re-registered ECs were assessed from the CDSCO website. The second phase involved assessing investigator awareness and knowledge about ACTs using a prevalidated questionnaire with a content validity index score of 0.93. Results: In 2020, the highest numbers of studies were registered, with the highest numbers of registered and re-registered ECs from Maharashtra. All participants completed the questionnaire and were aware of the need to follow guidelines for clinical trials. Sixty-seven percent of participants knew that the guidelines for ACTs differed from those of sponsored clinical trials, but only 58% were aware of the exact definition of an ACT as per NDCTR, 2019. Eighty-five percent of participants knew who could initiate an ACT, but only 27% knew about the applicability of results of an ACT and 33% had in-depth knowledge about the required approvals, while only 10% knew the archival period. Although 71% of participants had knowledge about serious adverse event reporting, few answered in-depth questions correctly. Only 31 participants reported facing varied challenges. Conclusion: To conduct ACTs effectively and contribute to healthcare and scientific advancement, it is crucial to enhance investigators' existing knowledge about ACTs.
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.