Cargando…

A comparative analysis of important public clinical trial registries, and a proposal for an interim ideal one

BACKGROUND: It is an ethical and scientific obligation to register each clinical trial, and report its results, accurately, comprehensively and on time. The WHO recognizes 17 public registries as Primary Registries, and has also introduced a set of minimal standards in the International Standards fo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Venugopal, Nisha, Saberwal, Gayatri
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8112656/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33974649
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251191
_version_ 1783690711953047552
author Venugopal, Nisha
Saberwal, Gayatri
author_facet Venugopal, Nisha
Saberwal, Gayatri
author_sort Venugopal, Nisha
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: It is an ethical and scientific obligation to register each clinical trial, and report its results, accurately, comprehensively and on time. The WHO recognizes 17 public registries as Primary Registries, and has also introduced a set of minimal standards in the International Standards for Clinical Trial Registries (ISCTR) that primary registries need to implement. These standards are categorized into nine sections—Content, Quality and Validity, Accessibility, Unambiguous Identification, Technical Capacity, Administration and Governance, the Trial Registration Data Set (TRDS), Partner registries and Data Interchange Standards. This study compared the WHO’s primary registries, and the US’s ClinicalTrials.gov, to examine the implementation of ISCTR, with the aim of defining features of an interim ideal registry. METHODS AND FINDINGS: The websites of the 18 registries were evaluated for 14 features that map to one or more of the nine sections of ISCTR, and assigned scores for their variations of these features. The assessed features include the nature of the content; the number and nature of fields to conduct a search; data download formats; the nature of the audit trail; the health condition category; the documentation available on a registry website; etc. The registries received scores for their particular variation of a given feature based on a scoring rationale devised for each individual feature analysed. Overall, the registries received between 27% and 80% of the maximum score of 94. The results from our analysis were used to define a set of features of an interim ideal registry. CONCLUSIONS: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to quantify the widely divergent quality of the primary registries’ compliance with the ISCTR. Even with this limited assessment, it is clear that some of the registries have much work to do, although even a few improvements would significantly improve them.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8112656
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-81126562021-05-24 A comparative analysis of important public clinical trial registries, and a proposal for an interim ideal one Venugopal, Nisha Saberwal, Gayatri PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: It is an ethical and scientific obligation to register each clinical trial, and report its results, accurately, comprehensively and on time. The WHO recognizes 17 public registries as Primary Registries, and has also introduced a set of minimal standards in the International Standards for Clinical Trial Registries (ISCTR) that primary registries need to implement. These standards are categorized into nine sections—Content, Quality and Validity, Accessibility, Unambiguous Identification, Technical Capacity, Administration and Governance, the Trial Registration Data Set (TRDS), Partner registries and Data Interchange Standards. This study compared the WHO’s primary registries, and the US’s ClinicalTrials.gov, to examine the implementation of ISCTR, with the aim of defining features of an interim ideal registry. METHODS AND FINDINGS: The websites of the 18 registries were evaluated for 14 features that map to one or more of the nine sections of ISCTR, and assigned scores for their variations of these features. The assessed features include the nature of the content; the number and nature of fields to conduct a search; data download formats; the nature of the audit trail; the health condition category; the documentation available on a registry website; etc. The registries received scores for their particular variation of a given feature based on a scoring rationale devised for each individual feature analysed. Overall, the registries received between 27% and 80% of the maximum score of 94. The results from our analysis were used to define a set of features of an interim ideal registry. CONCLUSIONS: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to quantify the widely divergent quality of the primary registries’ compliance with the ISCTR. Even with this limited assessment, it is clear that some of the registries have much work to do, although even a few improvements would significantly improve them. Public Library of Science 2021-05-11 /pmc/articles/PMC8112656/ /pubmed/33974649 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251191 Text en © 2021 Venugopal, Saberwal https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Venugopal, Nisha
Saberwal, Gayatri
A comparative analysis of important public clinical trial registries, and a proposal for an interim ideal one
title A comparative analysis of important public clinical trial registries, and a proposal for an interim ideal one
title_full A comparative analysis of important public clinical trial registries, and a proposal for an interim ideal one
title_fullStr A comparative analysis of important public clinical trial registries, and a proposal for an interim ideal one
title_full_unstemmed A comparative analysis of important public clinical trial registries, and a proposal for an interim ideal one
title_short A comparative analysis of important public clinical trial registries, and a proposal for an interim ideal one
title_sort comparative analysis of important public clinical trial registries, and a proposal for an interim ideal one
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8112656/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33974649
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251191
work_keys_str_mv AT venugopalnisha acomparativeanalysisofimportantpublicclinicaltrialregistriesandaproposalforaninterimidealone
AT saberwalgayatri acomparativeanalysisofimportantpublicclinicaltrialregistriesandaproposalforaninterimidealone
AT venugopalnisha comparativeanalysisofimportantpublicclinicaltrialregistriesandaproposalforaninterimidealone
AT saberwalgayatri comparativeanalysisofimportantpublicclinicaltrialregistriesandaproposalforaninterimidealone