ReviewCancer innovation2023
The landscape of investigator-initiated oncology trials conducted in mainland China during the past decade (2010-2019).
Review in Cancer innovation, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Oncology drug development in the UK: analysis of the past 25 years and focus on the 2026 reboot of the clinical trial regulatory framework.British journal of cancer · 2026Article
- Hematological Malignancy Trials in Chinese Mainland, 2013-2022: A Landscape Analysis with Exploratory Macro-Level Temporal Correlations.Clinical and translational science · 2026Article
- Stakeholder perception of quality management of investigator-initiated clinical trials.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- The Survival and Financial Benefit of Investigator-Initiated Trials Conducted by Korean Cancer Study Group.Cancer research and treatment · 2025Article
- A qualitative study on the management system for investigator-initiated studies in healthcare institutions in Beijing, China.Health research policy and systems · 2024Article
- Depression clinical trials worldwide: a systematic analysis of the ICTRP and comparison with ClinicalTrials.gov.Translational psychiatry · 2024Review
- The landscape of investigator-initiated oncology trials conducted in mainland China during the past decade (2010-2019).Cancer innovation · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The number of clinical trials conducted in mainland China, including investigator-initiated trials (IITs), has increased rapidly in recent years. However, there are few data on the characteristics of cancer-related IITs. We performed a comprehensive analysis of the landscape of cancer-related IITs in mainland China in the past decade. All cancer-related IITs registered on two clinical trial registries in the United States (www.clinicaltrials.gov, CT.gov) and mainland China (www.chictr.org.cn, ChiCTR) from 2010 to 2019 were identified. IITs were reviewed manually to validate classification, subcategorized by cancer type, and stratified by design characteristics to facilitate comparison across cancer types and with other specialties. A total of 8199 cancer-related IITs were identified. The number of trials registered annually increased over time, especially in the last 5 years. Although interventional studies were predominant, randomized double-blind studies accounted for only 8% of IITs. In the past decade, the trend for interventional studies conducted with different drugs increased year on year, although the increase in hormonal therapy IITs was not significant. Additionally, cancer-related IITs were unevenly geographically distributed, with half concentrated in the economically developed cities Shanghai, Beijing, and Guangdong. We also found an increase in registration before participant enrollment (64.9% for trials in conducted in 2015-2019 vs. 40.2% in 2010-2014,
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.