Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Trials 1/2019

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Research

An analysis of deficiencies in the data of interventional drug trials registered with Clinical Trials Registry - India

Authors: Mounika Pillamarapu, Abhilash Mohan, Gayatri Saberwal

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Clinical Trials Registry - India (CTRI) was established in July 2007 and today hosts thousands of trials, a significant fraction of them registered in the last couple of years. We wished to undertake an up-to-date analysis of specific fields of the registered trials. In doing so we discovered problems with the quality of the data, which we describe in this paper.

Methods

We downloaded CTRI records and reformatted the data into an SQLite database, which we then queried. We also accessed ClinicalTrials.gov records as needed.

Results

We discovered various categories of problems with the data in the CTRI database, including (1) a lack of clarity in the classification of Types of Study, (2) internal inconsistencies, (3) incomplete or non-standard information, (4) missing data, (5) variations in names or classification, and (6) incomplete or incorrect details of ethics committees. For most of these problems, error rates have been calculated, over time. Most were found to be in single digits, although others were significantly higher. We suggest how data quality in future editions of CTRI could be improved, including (1) a more elaborate and structured way of classifying the Type of Study, (2) the use of logic rules to prevent internal inconsistencies, (3) less use of free text fields and greater use of drop-down menus, (4) more fields to be made compulsory, (5) the pre-registration of individuals’ and organizations’ names and their subsequent selection from drop-down menus while registering a trial, and (6) more information about each ethics committee, including (a) its address and (b) linking the name of the trial site to the relevant ethics committee. As we discuss problems with the data of specific fields, we also examine — where possible — the quality of the data in the corresponding fields in ClinicalTrials.gov, the largest clinical trial registry in the world.

Conclusions

It is a scientific and ethical obligation to correctly record all information pertaining to each trial run in India. CTRI is a valuable database that has proved its worth in terms of improving the record of trials in the country. The suggestions made herein would improve it further.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Simes RJ. Publication bias: the case for an international registry of clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 1986;4:1529–41.CrossRef Simes RJ. Publication bias: the case for an international registry of clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 1986;4:1529–41.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Tharyan P. Prospective registration of clinical trials in India: strategies, achievements and challenges. J Evid Based Med. 2009;2:19–28.CrossRef Tharyan P. Prospective registration of clinical trials in India: strategies, achievements and challenges. J Evid Based Med. 2009;2:19–28.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Selvarajan S, George M, Kumar SS, Dkhar SA. Clinical trials in India: Where do we stand globally? Perspect Clin Res. 2013;4:160–4.CrossRef Selvarajan S, George M, Kumar SS, Dkhar SA. Clinical trials in India: Where do we stand globally? Perspect Clin Res. 2013;4:160–4.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Chaturvedi M, Gogtay NJ, Thatte UM. Do clinical trials conducted in India match its healthcare needs? An audit of the Clinical Trials Registry of India. Perspect Clin Res. 2017;8:172–5.CrossRef Chaturvedi M, Gogtay NJ, Thatte UM. Do clinical trials conducted in India match its healthcare needs? An audit of the Clinical Trials Registry of India. Perspect Clin Res. 2017;8:172–5.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Nikarge S, Pamnani D. Clinical trials watch. Indian J Med Ethics. 2009;6:228–31.PubMed Nikarge S, Pamnani D. Clinical trials watch. Indian J Med Ethics. 2009;6:228–31.PubMed
9.
go back to reference Ravindran D, Nikarge S. Clinical trials watch. Indian J Med Ethics. 2010;7:127–9. Ravindran D, Nikarge S. Clinical trials watch. Indian J Med Ethics. 2010;7:127–9.
10.
go back to reference Borkar C, Jacob VD, Ravindran D. Clinical trials watch. Indian J Med Ethics. 2011;8:197. Borkar C, Jacob VD, Ravindran D. Clinical trials watch. Indian J Med Ethics. 2011;8:197.
11.
go back to reference Yadav P, Jaykaran J, Choudhury M, Saxena D, Kantharia ND. Clinical trials registered in clinical trial registry of India: a survey. J Pharmacol Pharmacother. 2011;2:289–92.CrossRef Yadav P, Jaykaran J, Choudhury M, Saxena D, Kantharia ND. Clinical trials registered in clinical trial registry of India: a survey. J Pharmacol Pharmacother. 2011;2:289–92.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Jacob VD, Ravindran D, Ved K. Clinical trials watch. Indian J Med Ethics. 2012;9:73. Jacob VD, Ravindran D, Ved K. Clinical trials watch. Indian J Med Ethics. 2012;9:73.
13.
go back to reference George B. CTRI – Clicking to greater transparency and accountability. Perspect Clin Res. 2012;3:122–4.CrossRef George B. CTRI – Clicking to greater transparency and accountability. Perspect Clin Res. 2012;3:122–4.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Bhide SS, Tadavi FM, Maurya MR, Bhojne SK, Chandrakar P. Assessment of clinical trials registered at clinical trial registry of India over past decade: an audit. Int J Clin Trials. 2016;3:238–43.CrossRef Bhide SS, Tadavi FM, Maurya MR, Bhojne SK, Chandrakar P. Assessment of clinical trials registered at clinical trial registry of India over past decade: an audit. Int J Clin Trials. 2016;3:238–43.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Birajdar AR, Bose D, Nishandar TB, Shende AA, Thatte UM, Gogtay NJ. An audit of studies registered retrospectively with the Clinical Trials Registry of India: a one year analysis. Perspect Clin Res. 2019;10:26–30.CrossRef Birajdar AR, Bose D, Nishandar TB, Shende AA, Thatte UM, Gogtay NJ. An audit of studies registered retrospectively with the Clinical Trials Registry of India: a one year analysis. Perspect Clin Res. 2019;10:26–30.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Chaturvedi N, Mehrotra B, Kumari S, Gupta S, Subramanya HS, Saberwal G. Some data quality issues at ClinicalTrials.gov. Trials. 2019;20:378.CrossRef Chaturvedi N, Mehrotra B, Kumari S, Gupta S, Subramanya HS, Saberwal G. Some data quality issues at ClinicalTrials.gov. Trials. 2019;20:378.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare. Fifty-ninth report on the functioning of the Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation (CDSCO). New Delhi: Rajya Sabha Secretariat; 2012. Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare. Fifty-ninth report on the functioning of the Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation (CDSCO). New Delhi: Rajya Sabha Secretariat; 2012.
19.
go back to reference Keezhupalat SM, Naik A, Gupta S, Srivatsan R, Saberwal G. An analysis of sponsors/collaborators of 69,160 drug trials registered with ClinicalTrials.gov. PLOS One. 2016;11:e0149416.CrossRef Keezhupalat SM, Naik A, Gupta S, Srivatsan R, Saberwal G. An analysis of sponsors/collaborators of 69,160 drug trials registered with ClinicalTrials.gov. PLOS One. 2016;11:e0149416.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Gresham GK, Ehrhardt S, Meinert JL, Appel LJ, Meinert CL. Characteristics and trends of clinical trials funded by the National Institutes of Health between 2005 and 2015. Clin Trials. 2018;15:65–74.CrossRef Gresham GK, Ehrhardt S, Meinert JL, Appel LJ, Meinert CL. Characteristics and trends of clinical trials funded by the National Institutes of Health between 2005 and 2015. Clin Trials. 2018;15:65–74.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Williams RJ, Tse T, DiPiazza K, Zarin DA. Terminated trials in the ClinicalTrials.gov results database: evaluation of availability of primary outcome data and reasons for termination. PLOS One. 2015;10:e0127242.CrossRef Williams RJ, Tse T, DiPiazza K, Zarin DA. Terminated trials in the ClinicalTrials.gov results database: evaluation of availability of primary outcome data and reasons for termination. PLOS One. 2015;10:e0127242.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Brandt AM. Racism and research: the case of the Tuskegee Syphilis study. Hast Cent Rep. 1978;8:21–9.CrossRef Brandt AM. Racism and research: the case of the Tuskegee Syphilis study. Hast Cent Rep. 1978;8:21–9.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Tharyan P, George AT, Kirubakaran R, Barnabas JP. Reporting of methods was better in the Clinical Trial Registry-India than in Indian journal publications. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(1):10–22.CrossRef Tharyan P, George AT, Kirubakaran R, Barnabas JP. Reporting of methods was better in the Clinical Trial Registry-India than in Indian journal publications. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(1):10–22.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Tse T, Fain KM, Zarin DA. How to avoid common problems when using ClinicalTrials.gov in research: 10 issues to consider. BMJ. 2018;361:k1452.CrossRef Tse T, Fain KM, Zarin DA. How to avoid common problems when using ClinicalTrials.gov in research: 10 issues to consider. BMJ. 2018;361:k1452.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Zarin DA, Tse T, Williams RJ, Califf RM, Ide NC. The ClinicalTrials.gov results database – update and key issues. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:852–60.CrossRef Zarin DA, Tse T, Williams RJ, Califf RM, Ide NC. The ClinicalTrials.gov results database – update and key issues. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:852–60.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Viergever RF, Ghersi D. The quality of registration of clinical trials. PLOS One. 2011;6:e14701.CrossRef Viergever RF, Ghersi D. The quality of registration of clinical trials. PLOS One. 2011;6:e14701.CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Carlisle B, Kimmelman J, Ramsay T, MacKinnon N. Unsuccessful trial accrual and human subjects protections: an empirical analysis of recently closed trials. Clin Trials. 2015;12:77–83.CrossRef Carlisle B, Kimmelman J, Ramsay T, MacKinnon N. Unsuccessful trial accrual and human subjects protections: an empirical analysis of recently closed trials. Clin Trials. 2015;12:77–83.CrossRef
31.
go back to reference Jones CW, Safferman MR, Adams AC, Platts-Mills TF. Discrepancies between ClinicalTrials.gov recruitment status and actual trial status: a cross-sectional analysis. BMJ Open. 2017;7:e017719.CrossRef Jones CW, Safferman MR, Adams AC, Platts-Mills TF. Discrepancies between ClinicalTrials.gov recruitment status and actual trial status: a cross-sectional analysis. BMJ Open. 2017;7:e017719.CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Fleminger J, Goldacre B. Prevalence of clinical trial status discrepancies: a cross-sectional study of 10,492 trials registered on both ClinicalTrials.gov and the European Union Clinical Trials Register. PLOS One. 2018;13:e0193088.CrossRef Fleminger J, Goldacre B. Prevalence of clinical trial status discrepancies: a cross-sectional study of 10,492 trials registered on both ClinicalTrials.gov and the European Union Clinical Trials Register. PLOS One. 2018;13:e0193088.CrossRef
33.
go back to reference Godlee F. An international standard for disclosure of clinical trial information. BMJ. 2006;332:1107–8.CrossRef Godlee F. An international standard for disclosure of clinical trial information. BMJ. 2006;332:1107–8.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
An analysis of deficiencies in the data of interventional drug trials registered with Clinical Trials Registry - India
Authors
Mounika Pillamarapu
Abhilash Mohan
Gayatri Saberwal
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-019-3592-0

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

Trials 1/2019 Go to the issue