Dataset Information

Survey of public information about ongoing clinical trials funded by industry: evaluation of completeness and accessibility.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the completeness and accessibility of public information about US clinical trials of drugs in development. DESIGN:Review of online registers of clinical trials. DATA SOURCES:Drugs in phase III trials were identified using three drug industry sources: PhRMA Survey, What's in the Pipeline, and the NDA Pipeline. Drug trials were then searched for on the following publicly accessible registers of clinical trials:, and registers associated with the 37 "Comprehensive Cancer Centers" designated by the National Cancer Institute. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE:Extent of availability of public information on phase III trials of drugs in development for treating either prostate or colon cancer. RESULTS:Search of industry sources identified 12 drugs for prostate cancer and 20 for colon cancer undergoing phase III trials. The most comprehensive publicly available register, contained trial listings for only seven of the prostate cancer drugs and 10 of the colon cancer drugs. Trials of three prostate cancer and three colon cancer drugs were listed on only one register each. A substantial proportion of trials of prostate cancer drugs (3/12) and colon cancer drugs (8/20) were not associated with trial listings in any registers. CONCLUSIONS:Existing trials registers are unlikely to be meeting user needs since many ongoing drug trials are not listed. There is a clear need for a comprehensive clinical trials register encompassing all ongoing trials, including industry sponsored trials.

SUBMITTER: Manheimer E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC124135 | biostudies-literature | 2002 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Survey of public information about ongoing clinical trials funded by industry: evaluation of completeness and accessibility.

Manheimer Eric E Anderson Diana D

BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20020901 7363

<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate the completeness and accessibility of public information about US clinical trials of drugs in development.<h4>Design</h4>Review of online registers of clinical trials.<h4>Data sources</h4>Drugs in phase III trials were identified using three drug industry sources: PhRMA Survey, What's in the Pipeline, and the NDA Pipeline. Drug trials were then searched for on the following publicly accessible registers of clinical trials:, and registers associated with the 37 "Comp ...[more]

PMID: 12217994

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesConduct a head-to-head experimental test of responses to alcohol harm reduction advertisements developed by alcohol industry Social Aspects/Public Relations Organisations (SAPROs) versus those developed by public health (PH) agencies. We hypothesised that, on average, SAPRO advertisements would be less effective at generating motivation (H1) and intentions to reduce alcohol consumption (H2) but more effective at generating positive perceptions of people who drink (H3).DesignOnline experiment with random assignment to condition.Participants2923 Australian adult weekly drinkers (49% high-risk drinkers) recruited from an opt-in online panel.InterventionsParticipants viewed 3 of 83 advertisements developed by PH agencies (n=2174) or 3 of 28 advertisements developed by SAPROs (n=749).Primary outcome measuresParticipants reported their motivation to reduce the amount of alcohol consumed; behave responsibly and/or not get drunk; and limit their drinking around/never supply to minors, as well as intentions to avoid drinking alcohol completely; reduce the number of drinking occasions; and reduce the amount of alcohol consumed per occasion. Participants also reported their perceptions of people who drink alcohol on six success-related items and four fun-related items.ResultsCompared with drinkers exposed to PH advertisements, those exposed to SAPRO advertisements reported lower motivation to reduce the amount of alcohol consumed (β=-0.091, 95% CI -0.171 to -0.010), and lower odds of intending to avoid alcohol completely (OR=0.77, 0.63 to 0.94) and to reduce the amount of alcohol consumed per occasion (OR=0.82, 0.69 to 0.97). SAPRO advertisements generated more favourable fun-related perceptions of drinkers (β=0.095, 0.013 to 0.177).ConclusionsThe alcohol harm reduction advertisements produced by alcohol industry SAPROs that were tested in this study were not as effective at generating motivation and intentions to reduce alcohol consumption as those developed by PH organisations. These findings raise questions as to whether SAPROs should play a role in alcohol harm reduction efforts.

Project description: To investigate the practice of post-marketing studies in Germany during a three year period and to evaluate whether these trials meet the aims specified in the German Medicinal Products Act. Survey of notifications submitted to German regulatory agencies before post-marketing studies were carried out, 2008-10. Notifications obtained through freedom of information requests to the three authorities responsible for registering post-marketing studies in Germany. Descriptive statistics of post-marketing studies, including the products under study, intended number of patients, intended number of participating physicians, proposed remunerations, study plan and protocol, and availability of associated scientific publications and reports on adverse drug reactions. Information was obtained from 558 studies, with a median of 600 (mean 2331, range 2-75?000) patients and 63 (270, 0-7000) participating physicians per study. The median remuneration to physicians per patient was €200 (€441, €0-€7280) (£170, £0-£6200; $215, $0-$7820), with a total remuneration cost of more than €217m for 558 studies registered over the three year period. The median remuneration per participating physician per study was €2000 (mean €19?424), ranging from €0 to €2?080?000. There was a broad range of drugs and non-drug products, of which only a third represented recently approved drugs. In many notifications, data, information, and results were, by contract, strictly confidential and the sole property of the respective sponsor. No single adverse drug reaction report could be identified from any of the 558 post-marketing studies. Less than 1% of studies could be verified as published in scientific journals. Post-marketing studies are not improving drug safety surveillance. Sample sizes are generally too small to allow the detection of rare adverse drug reactions, and many participating physicians are strictly obliged to maintain confidentiality towards the sponsor. High remuneration and strict confidentiality clauses in these studies could influence the physicians' reporting behaviours of adverse drug reactions.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The Physician Payments Sunshine Act, part of the Affordable Care Act, requires pharmaceutical and medical device firms to report payments they make to physicians and, through its Open Payments program, makes this information publicly available. OBJECTIVE:To establish estimates of the exposure of the American patient population to physicians who accept industry payments, to compare these population-based estimates to physician-based estimates of industry contact, and to investigate Americans' awareness of industry payments. DESIGN:Cross-sectional survey conducted in late September and early October 2014, with data linkage of respondents' physicians to Open Payments data. PARTICIPANTS:A total of 3542 adults drawn from a large, nationally representative household panel. MAIN MEASURES:Respondents' contact with physicians reported in Open Payments to have received industry payments; respondents' awareness that physicians receive payments from industry and that payment information is publicly available; respondents' knowledge of whether their own physician received industry payments. KEY RESULTS:Among the 1987 respondents who could be matched to a specific physician, 65% saw a physician who had received an industry payment during the previous 12 months. This population-based estimate of exposure to industry contact is much higher than physician-based estimates from the same period, which indicate that 41% of physicians received an industry payment. Across the six most frequently visited specialties, patient contact with physicians who had received an industry payment ranged from 60 to 85%; the percentage of physicians with industry contact in these specialties was much lower (35-56%). Only 12% of survey respondents knew that payment information was publicly available, and only 5% knew whether their own doctor had received payments. CONCLUSIONS:Patients' contact with physicians who receive industry payments is more prevalent than physician-based measures of industry contact would suggest. Very few Americans know whether their own doctor has received industry payments or are aware that payment information is publicly available.

Project description:BackgroundIn the UK, most funding bodies now expect a commitment or effort on the part of grant holders to disseminate the findings of their research. The emphasis is on ensuring that publicly funded research is made available, can be used to support decision making, and ultimately improve the quality and delivery of healthcare provided. In this study, we aimed to describe the dissemination practices and impacts of applied and public health researchers working across the UK.MethodsWe conducted a survey of 485 UK-based principal investigators of publicly funded applied and public health research. Participants were contacted by email and invited to complete an online questionnaire via an embedded URL. Gift vouchers were given to all participants who completed the questionnaire. Four reminder emails were sent out to non-respondents at one, two, three, and four weeks; a fifth postal reminder was also undertaken.ResultsA total of 243/485 (50%) questionnaires were returned (232 completed, 11 declining to participate). Most researchers recognise the importance of and appear committed to research dissemination. However, most dissemination activity beyond the publishing of academic papers appears to be undertaken an ad hoc fashion. There is some evidence that access to dissemination advice and support may facilitate more policy interactions; though access to such resources is lacking at an institutional level, and advice from funders can be variable. Although a minority of respondents routinely record details about the impact of their research, when asked about impact in relation to specific research projects most were able to provide simple narrative descriptions.ConclusionsResearchers recognise the importance of and appear committed to disseminating the findings of their work. Although researchers are focussed on academic publication, a range of dissemination activities are being applied albeit in an ad hoc fashion. However, what constitutes effective dissemination (in terms of impact and return on investment) remains unclear. Researchers need greater and clearer guidance on how best to plan, resource, and facilitate their dissemination activities.

Dataset Information

Survey of public information about ongoing clinical trials funded by industry: evaluation of completeness and accessibility.

Publications

Survey of public information about ongoing clinical trials funded by industry: evaluation of completeness and accessibility.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets