ArticleBMJ open2025
Towards monitoring of global health research: an exploratory analysis of transparency and stakeholder engagement.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesMonitoring systems exist for clinical research transparency in high-income countries, but systematic assessment of these practices in global health (GH) research (GHR) is limited. We evaluated methods for monitoring GHR transparency and engagement.
designCross-sectional study. DATA SOURCES: Three sources were used: (a) ClinicalTrials.gov, (b) publications from 20 journals with 'international' or 'global' in the title and (c) outputs from selected GH funder websites. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: From ClinicalTrials.gov, we selected 200 interventional trials on maternal health and tuberculosis (2008-2019), ensuring two-thirds were from low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). From journals, we included 200 trial publications (2011-2023). From funder websites, we included outputs with sufficient metadata to track trial registration and reporting. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Trials were extracted independently by two reviewers for result publications; journal articles were screened to confirm whether they reported trial results. Across all sources, we assessed registration timing, result reporting, open access and stakeholder engagement.
resultsFor 200 trials, 37% were prospectively registered, 65% published results in journals and 15% reported summary results in ClinicalTrials.gov. Only 34% reported results in any format within 24 months of completion. Of 200 publications, 72% were freely accessible, and 23% of the 100-article subsample included stakeholder engagement statements. The funder website sample yielded insufficient metadata for analysis.
conclusionsMonitoring GHR is feasible using registries and journals, though funder websites provide limited tracking. While open-access rates are encouraging, timely reporting and engagement documentation remain weak. These results highlight opportunities for developing GHR-specific monitoring approaches through collaborative efforts among global 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.