Cargando…

The Egyptian clinical trials’ registry profile: Analysis of three trial registries (International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Pan-African Clinical Trials Registry and clinicaltrials.gov)

Registering clinical trials (CTs) in public domains enhances transparency, increases trust in research, improves participation and safeguards against publication bias. This work was done to study the profile of clinical research in Egypt in three CT registries with different scopes: the WHO Internat...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zeeneldin, Ahmed A., Taha, Fatma M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4703417/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26843968
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jare.2015.01.003
_version_ 1782408740530552832
author Zeeneldin, Ahmed A.
Taha, Fatma M.
author_facet Zeeneldin, Ahmed A.
Taha, Fatma M.
author_sort Zeeneldin, Ahmed A.
collection PubMed
description Registering clinical trials (CTs) in public domains enhances transparency, increases trust in research, improves participation and safeguards against publication bias. This work was done to study the profile of clinical research in Egypt in three CT registries with different scopes: the WHO International CT Registry Platform (ICTRP), the continental Pan-African CT Registry (PACTR) and the US clinicaltrials.gov (CTGR). In March 2014, ICTRP, PACTR and CTGR were searched for clinical studies conducted in Egypt. It was found that the number of studies conducted in Egypt (percentage) was 686 (0.30%) in ICTRP, 56 (11.3%) in PACTR and 548 (0.34%) in CTGR. Most studies were performed in universities and sponsored by university/organization, industry or individual researchers. Inclusion of adults from both genders predominated. The median number of participants per study in the three registries ranged between 63 and 155. The conditions researched differed among the three registries and study purpose was mostly treatment followed by prevention. Endpoints were mostly efficacy followed by safety. Observational:Interventional studies (i.e. clinical trials) represented 15.5%:84.5% in ICTRP, 0%:100% in PACTR and 16.4%:83.6% in CTGR. Most interventions were drugs or procedures. Observational studies were mostly prospective and cohort studies. Most CTs were phase 3 and tested drugs or procedures. Parallel group assignment and random allocation predominated. Blinding was implemented in many of trials and was mostly double-blind. We conclude that CTs from Egypt in trial registries are apparently low and do not accurately reflect clinical research conducted in Egypt or its potential. Development of an Egyptian CT registry is eagerly needed. Registering all Egyptian CTs in public domains is highly recommended.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4703417
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-47034172016-02-03 The Egyptian clinical trials’ registry profile: Analysis of three trial registries (International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Pan-African Clinical Trials Registry and clinicaltrials.gov) Zeeneldin, Ahmed A. Taha, Fatma M. J Adv Res Original Article Registering clinical trials (CTs) in public domains enhances transparency, increases trust in research, improves participation and safeguards against publication bias. This work was done to study the profile of clinical research in Egypt in three CT registries with different scopes: the WHO International CT Registry Platform (ICTRP), the continental Pan-African CT Registry (PACTR) and the US clinicaltrials.gov (CTGR). In March 2014, ICTRP, PACTR and CTGR were searched for clinical studies conducted in Egypt. It was found that the number of studies conducted in Egypt (percentage) was 686 (0.30%) in ICTRP, 56 (11.3%) in PACTR and 548 (0.34%) in CTGR. Most studies were performed in universities and sponsored by university/organization, industry or individual researchers. Inclusion of adults from both genders predominated. The median number of participants per study in the three registries ranged between 63 and 155. The conditions researched differed among the three registries and study purpose was mostly treatment followed by prevention. Endpoints were mostly efficacy followed by safety. Observational:Interventional studies (i.e. clinical trials) represented 15.5%:84.5% in ICTRP, 0%:100% in PACTR and 16.4%:83.6% in CTGR. Most interventions were drugs or procedures. Observational studies were mostly prospective and cohort studies. Most CTs were phase 3 and tested drugs or procedures. Parallel group assignment and random allocation predominated. Blinding was implemented in many of trials and was mostly double-blind. We conclude that CTs from Egypt in trial registries are apparently low and do not accurately reflect clinical research conducted in Egypt or its potential. Development of an Egyptian CT registry is eagerly needed. Registering all Egyptian CTs in public domains is highly recommended. Elsevier 2016-01 2015-01-17 /pmc/articles/PMC4703417/ /pubmed/26843968 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jare.2015.01.003 Text en © 2015 Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Cairo University. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Original Article
Zeeneldin, Ahmed A.
Taha, Fatma M.
The Egyptian clinical trials’ registry profile: Analysis of three trial registries (International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Pan-African Clinical Trials Registry and clinicaltrials.gov)
title The Egyptian clinical trials’ registry profile: Analysis of three trial registries (International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Pan-African Clinical Trials Registry and clinicaltrials.gov)
title_full The Egyptian clinical trials’ registry profile: Analysis of three trial registries (International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Pan-African Clinical Trials Registry and clinicaltrials.gov)
title_fullStr The Egyptian clinical trials’ registry profile: Analysis of three trial registries (International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Pan-African Clinical Trials Registry and clinicaltrials.gov)
title_full_unstemmed The Egyptian clinical trials’ registry profile: Analysis of three trial registries (International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Pan-African Clinical Trials Registry and clinicaltrials.gov)
title_short The Egyptian clinical trials’ registry profile: Analysis of three trial registries (International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Pan-African Clinical Trials Registry and clinicaltrials.gov)
title_sort egyptian clinical trials’ registry profile: analysis of three trial registries (international clinical trials registry platform, pan-african clinical trials registry and clinicaltrials.gov)
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4703417/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26843968
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jare.2015.01.003
work_keys_str_mv AT zeeneldinahmeda theegyptianclinicaltrialsregistryprofileanalysisofthreetrialregistriesinternationalclinicaltrialsregistryplatformpanafricanclinicaltrialsregistryandclinicaltrialsgov
AT tahafatmam theegyptianclinicaltrialsregistryprofileanalysisofthreetrialregistriesinternationalclinicaltrialsregistryplatformpanafricanclinicaltrialsregistryandclinicaltrialsgov
AT zeeneldinahmeda egyptianclinicaltrialsregistryprofileanalysisofthreetrialregistriesinternationalclinicaltrialsregistryplatformpanafricanclinicaltrialsregistryandclinicaltrialsgov
AT tahafatmam egyptianclinicaltrialsregistryprofileanalysisofthreetrialregistriesinternationalclinicaltrialsregistryplatformpanafricanclinicaltrialsregistryandclinicaltrialsgov