ArticlePerspectives in clinical research
Analyzing Subject Expert Committee meeting of minutes as a strategic metric for evaluating India's clinical research trajectory.
Article in Perspectives in clinical research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background: In India, the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) regulates drug, device, and cosmetics to support evidence-based decisions, and the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare established Subject Expert Committees (SECs) for drug approvals and clinical trials (CTs). Initially, established as New Drug Advisory Committees with 12 panels in 2011, they were restructured as Subject Expert Committees (SECs) in 2014 and expanded to 25 panels in 2015, a COVID-19-specific SEC were introduced in April 2020 to expedite vaccine and therapeutic assessments. This study analyses four years of SECs meeting minutes to assess decision-making trends and regulatory consistency. Methods: A systematic review of the SECs' meeting minutes was conducted from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2021. Applications were grouped into two categories: CTs and marketing authorization (MA), with consideration of waiver status. Each submission was further classified based on its regulatory outcome as approved, requiring modifications, or rejected. Results: Over 48 months, 551 s meetings reviewed 4563 agenda items, of which 3557 (77.95%) were evaluable, including 2170 (61.01%) CT applications and 1383 (38.88%) for MA, irrespective of a waiver request. Applications seeking a CT waiver were significantly more likely to be rejected (cOR: 10.13 [6.90, 14.87], Conclusion: Our analysis of 4563 s applications shows high approval rates, particularly in oncology, ophthalmology, and vaccines. However, inconsistencies in meeting documentation limit transparency and regulatory predictability. Standardized reporting guidelines could enhance consistency, transparency, and stakeholder confidence in regulatory decisions.
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.