ArticlePloS one2024
Iran's research prioritization: Are we meeting the goals? A study based on clinical trial registry data.
Article in PloS one, 2024. 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.
- [Analysis of the global registration status of clinical trials for artificial intelligence medical device].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The prioritization of research topics in the health domain is a critical step toward channelling efforts and resources into areas that have received less attention. The objective of this study is to evaluate the implementation of research priorities determined at the national level within Iran for the period spanning five years between 2009 and 2013. We extracted the required data from the Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials (IRCT) website. Then we conducted a matching process between the titles of trials registered in the IRCT until December 3rd, 2013, and the list of national health research priorities in the domains of communicable and non-communicable diseases. The latter was compiled and regulated by the Research and Technology Deputy of the Ministry of Health since 2008. Out of the total 5,049 clinical trials registered in IRCT, 92.3% were carried out within the domain of non-communicable diseases, while 6.1% pertained to the field of communicable diseases and the remaining 1.3% in other fields. 56.4% of the clinical trials conducted in the field of communicable diseases and 32.8% of those conducted in the field of non-communicable diseases were consistent with the research priorities determined in these two fields. During the five-year period of the prioritization goal, there was no significant improvement in adherence to the list of priorities compared to the previous five-year period. Furthermore, certain priorities were neglected within both areas during these periods. It is possible to evaluate the effectiveness of research prioritization using the data obtained from the registration centers of clinical trials. Our study has revealed that the list of priorities has not garnered adequate attention from the research community within the country. Hence, remedial measures are imperative to ensure the priorities are given more attention after publication.
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.