Dataset Information

Analysis of AYUSH studies registered in clinical trials registry of India from 2009 to 2020.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The Clinical Trials Registry-India (CTRI) is an initiative of the Indian Council of Medical Research, New Delhi, India (ICMR) and monitored by the ICMR-National Institute of Medical Statistics (NIMS) since July 20, 2007. Randomized clinical trials are considered as the gold standard in evidence-based medicine. Registration of clinical trials enables disseminating evidence among clinicians, researchers, and patients. It promotes transparency and avoids duplication. The registration process is mandatory for AYUSH clinical trials also.

Objectives

This analysis is aimed to determine the different characteristics of registered AYUSH clinical trials in CTRI from 2009 to 2020.

Materials and methods

A cross-sectional retrospective analysis was conducted. The information on registered clinical trials about AYUSH was obtained from the website www.ctri.nic.in from 2009 to 2020 (n = 3632; last accessed on July 30 2020). Data analysis considered the following factors for analysis using descriptive statistics. The number of clinical trials registered in AYUSH stream were classified according to registration type (retrospective/prospective), postgraduate dissertations (yes/no), primary sponsor, type of trial (interventional/observational), study design, health condition and State-wise distribution of sites of studies.

Results

The number of clinical trial registrations among AYUSH streams (3632) descends from Ayurveda (2054), followed by Siddha (635), Yoga (408), Unani (366) and Homoeopathy (169). Interventional studies dominate observational studies among all AYUSH registered trials. AYUSH streams took four years to register in CTRI due to an increase in reporting trials from 2013. Significant number of trials were registered retrospectively. The order of closure of retrospective registration has influenced an increase in prospective enrolment between 2017-2019.

Conclusion

Registration of clinical trials in the CTRI should be encouraged. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) occupy a rear seat which exposes an opportunity for trials and alarms about weak trials. Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) are registered more comparatively, which reflects the strength of AYUSH in NCDs. Most of the trials fall under phase 2, which seems to have an increasing opportunity for more trials. Certain visible flaws like registering Phase 2 trials as Phase 3 or 4 and domestic trials as international trials reflect human resources crunch in ICMR-CTRI in Issuing Certificates. These errors should be rectified by training the stakeholders effectively.

SUBMITTER: Shree Devi MS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8185998 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundClinical 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.MethodsWe downloaded CTRI records and reformatted the data into an SQLite database, which we then queried. We also accessed ClinicalTrials.gov records as needed.ResultsWe 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.ConclusionsIt 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.