ArticleResearch and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis2025
Global patterns of hemophilia drug trials, hemophilia care, and health care measures.
Article in Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Global Gap in the Hemophilia Paradigm Shift: Disparities in Research, Care, and Musculoskeletal Health.Hematology reports · 2026Review
- Knowledge on the Haemophilia Care Among Healthcare Providers in Tanzania: A Multicenter Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of blood medicine · 2026Article
- Regional variations and trends in hemophilia prevalence: A global analysis with future projection.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- Curative Therapies for Hemophilias and Hemoglobinopathies in Adults: Immune, Gene, and Stem Cell Approaches in a Global Context.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Reference Values for the Haemophilia Joint Health Score in Patients With Severe Haemophilia Derived From the Canadian Bleeding Disorder Registry.Haemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of HemophiliaArticle
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
Background: Drug trials are vital to establish safe and effective treatments for congenital hemophilia, a bleeding disorder that affects about 800,000 males worldwide. The global distribution of hemophilia drug trials (HDTs) and their alignment with hemophilia care is unknown. Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the global distribution of HDTs and its association with hemophilia care. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, HDTs conducted between 2007 and 2022 were selected from the clinicaltrials.gov database. The density of trials per 1000 expected males with hemophilia (eMwH) was assessed according to hemophilia care measures (factor VIII and IX utilization per 1000 eMwH) derived from World Federation of Hemophilia data. Results: Among 124 trials, 55 countries were represented, with an average of 7.9 countries per trial. Most HDT sites were in high-income (74.4%) or upper middle (20.1%)-income countries. The number of sites in lower-middle-income countries doubled, from 12 in 2007-2011 to 30 in 2017-2022-a nonsignificant increase from 5.8% to 7.0% ( Conclusion: Most HDT sites were located in high-income countries, although a substantial proportion were in upper middle-income countries. A small but increasing number of trials were conducted in lower-middle-income countries, where factor usage is relatively low. This study provides evidence on the global distribution of HDT and raises questions regarding the generalizability, barriers, opportunities, and ethics of trials for a rare bleeding disorder.
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.