Statement on publishing clinical trials in Indian biomedical journals

Publication of neurology clinical trials registered with clinical trial registry of India: A cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

Unbiased and full disclosure of trial results is vital to evidence-based medicine. Non-publication and selective publication leads to publication bias and unrealistic risk-benefit ratio. In the present study, we aim to determine the publication rate of clinical trials related to neurology registered with the Clinical Trial Registry of India (CTRI), compare the characteristics of published and unpublished trials, and evaluate the adherence of investigators to ethics-approved criteria and outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A cross-sectional search using the keyword "neurology" was carried out in CTRI registry. Two independent investigators searched Pubmed, Medline, Scopus, and Google Scholar for published manuscripts. The final literature search occurred in November 2021.

RESULTS

Out of 325 trials, 102 trials were published (31.4%). Ninety-one trials were beyond 3 years of expected time of trial completion and were still unpublished. Randomized trials had a slightly higher publication rate than non-randomized ones (56% vs. 46%, p = .223); however the difference was not statistically significant. Majority of trials sponsored by pharmaceutical companies were not published, while majority of those sponsored by non-pharmaceutical institutions were published (34.5% vs. 69.3%, p < .001). Feedback to CTRI about trial status was particularly poor (31.5% - informed vs. 68.5% - not informed, p < .001). 52 (50.9%) and 65 (63.7%) of the 102 published trials had changed the registered inclusion and exclusion criteria, respectively, in the CTRI registry compared to those in the published manuscript. In 29 (28.3%) of the 102 trials, the primary outcome did not match with that registered in the CTRI and in 73 (57.8%) trials, the secondary outcomes did not match.

CONCLUSION

A large proportion of neurology registered trials are still unpublished, with a majority of pharmaceutical company-sponsored trials not being published. There is scope for improving the provisions in CTRI for enlisting trial results, that may prevent publication bias and also ensure the investigators adhere to the pre-specified ethics approved trial procedures and outcomes.

Editorial policies of MEDLINE indexed Indian journals on clinical trial registration

30 MEDLINE indexed Indian journals publishing clinical trials were identified and their editorial policies on trial registration were assessed. Trial registration number was required in 9 journals (30%).16 journals (53.33%) encouraged adherence to the CONSORT Statement, while 22 (73.33%) mentioned ICMJE Guidelines.

Prospective registration of clinical trials in India: strategies, achievements & challenges

OBJECTIVE

This paper traces the development of the Clinical Trial Registry-India (CTRI) against the backdrop of the inequities in healthcare and the limitations in the design, conduct, regulation, oversight and reporting of clinical trials in India. It describes the scope and goals of the CTRI, the data elements it seeks and the process of registering clinical trials. It reports progress in trial registration in India and discusses the challenges in ensuring that healthcare decisions are informed by all the evidence.

METHODS

A descriptive survey of developments in clinical trial registration in India from publications in the Indian medical literature supplemented by first hand knowledge of these developments and an evaluation of how well clinical trials registered in the CTRI up to 10 January, 2009 comply with the requirements of the CTRI and the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trial Registry (WHO ICTRP).

RESULTS

Considerable inequities exist within the Indian health system. Deficiencies in healthcare provision and uneven regulation of, and access to, affordable healthcare co-exists with a large private health system of uneven quality. India is now a preferred destination for outsourced clinical trials but is plagued by poor ethical oversight of the many trial sites and scant information of their existence. The CTRI's vision of conforming to international requirements for transparency and accountability but also using trial registration as a means of improving trial design, conduct and reporting led to the selection of registry-specific dataset items in addition to those endorsed by the WHO ICTRP. Compliance with these requirements is good for the trials currently registered but these trials represent only a fraction of the trials in progress in India.

CONCLUSION

Prospective trial registration is a reality in India. The challenges facing the CTRI include better engagement with key stakeholders to ensure increased prospective registration of clinical trials and utilization of existing legislative opportunities to complement these efforts.