ArticleBMC medical research methodology2024
Identifying trials run in India that are registered in other clinical trial registries: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 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.
- Identifying trials run in India that are registered in other clinical trial registries: a cross-sectional study.BMC medical research methodology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinical trials play a crucial role in biomedical research, and it is important to register them in public registries to ensure transparency and prevent research waste. In this study, we wished to determine what steps need to be taken to identify every clinical trial run in India that has been registered in any of the (non-Indian) World Health Organization-recognised primary registries. Of the 16 registries, we studied all except that of the European Union, which will be studied separately.
methodsTwo methodologies were employed for each registry, except for four that did not facilitate one or the other method. Methodology A involved downloading all the records in a registry and querying them. Methodology B involved conducting a search via the registry website.
resultsOnly four registries provided consistent results with both methodologies. Seven registries had different results from the two methodologies. Of these, in four cases, in Methodology A one field indicated that the study ran in India, while another indicated otherwise.
conclusionsThe above-mentioned ambiguities should be addressed by the concerned registries. Overall, this study reinforces the need for improved data accuracy and transparency in clinical trial registries and emphasizes the importance of resolving complications faced by users while navigating the registries. Ensuring accurate and comprehensive registration of clinical trials is essential for meta-research and the use of such data by a variety of stakeholders.
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.