ArticlePerspectives in clinical research
Clinical trial trends over the last 5 years among the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) nations.
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.
- From Clinical Trials to Commercialization: Perspectives in Human Vaccine.Pharmaceutical research · 2026Article
- Advancing Regulatory Oversight of Medical Device Trials to Align with Clinical Drug Standards in the European Union.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Clinical trial footprint in BRICS: Improvements seen but needs further affirmative action.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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Although the Americas and Europe have historically dominated the global research landscape, emerging economies - Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa (BRICS) have significantly increased their contributions in recent years. This article studies clinical trial trends in the BRICS nations between 2018 and 2022 and compares it with trends in the G7 nations (comprising Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the UK, the USA, and the European Union). This will help stakeholders in planning drug development strategies. Materials and Methods: Data were collected from the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) and the World Bank database. An electronic search was done for the total number of trials registered between January 1, 2018, and March 15, 2023. Information was analyzed based on the year of registration, therapeutic area, type of intervention, sponsorship, and type of special population. The trial density indices (TDIs) were calculated based on population (Xi) and gross domestic product (GDP) (Yi) using author-derived formulae. Results: Altogether 2, 77, 536 trials from the BRICS and G7 were registered. China and the US had the most trials among the BRICS and G7, respectively. Between 2018 and 2022, the gap between the BRICS and G7 steadily reduced. The most common indication for clinical trials among the BRICS was cancer. Based on population, the TDI was the highest in China and the lowest in Russia. In proportion to the GDP, the TDI was maximum in Russia and minimum in India. Conclusion: There is a remarkable reduction in the gap in clinical trial trends between the BRICS and G7 nations. Among the BRICS, India and China are at the forefront in drug development. There is scope for improvement in trial density based on India's population and GDP. Stakeholders are likely to utilize the strengths of the BRICS as an attractive destination for investment in this area.
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.