Preprint / Version 1

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

Authors

  • Mounika Pillamarapu Institute of Bioinformatics and Applied Biotechnology, Biotech Park, Electronics City Phase 1, Bengaluru, Karnataka 560100 India
  • Abhilash Mohan Institute of Bioinformatics and Applied Biotechnology, Biotech Park, Electronics City Phase 1, Bengaluru, Karnataka 560100 India
  • Gayatri Saberwal Institute of Bioinformatics and Applied Biotechnology, Biotech Park, Electronics City Phase 1, Bengaluru, Karnataka 560100 India

Keywords:

Clinical trials, CTRI, Data integrity, Missing data, Error rates, India, ClinicalTrials.gov

Abstract

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. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-019-3592-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Keywords: Clinical trials, CTRI, Data integrity, Missing data, Error rates, India, ClinicalTrials.gov

Downloads