Investigator Initiated Clinical Trials (IICTs): A Systematic Search in Registries to Compare the Czech Republic and Portugal in Terms of Funding Policies and Scientific Outcomes

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00159816%3A_____%2F21%3A00075218" target="_blank" >RIV/00159816:_____/21:00075218 - isvavai.cz</a>

Nalezeny alternativní kódy

RIV/00209805:_____/21:00078669 RIV/00216224:14110/21:00122133

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs43441-021-00293-w" target="_blank" >https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs43441-021-00293-w</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s43441-021-00293-w" target="_blank" >10.1007/s43441-021-00293-w</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Investigator Initiated Clinical Trials (IICTs): A Systematic Search in Registries to Compare the Czech Republic and Portugal in Terms of Funding Policies and Scientific Outcomes

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

Objectives Clinical trials provide one of the highest levels of evidence to support medical practice. Investigator initiated clinical trials (IICTs) answer relevant questions in clinical practice that may not be addressed by industry. For the first time, two European Countries are compared in terms of IICTs, respective funders and publications, envisaging to inspire others to use similar indicators to assess clinical research outcomes. Methods A retrospective systematic search of registered IICTs from 2004 to 2017, using four clinical trials registries was carried out in two European countries with similar population, GDP, HDI and medical schools but with different governmental models to fund clinical research. Each IICT was screened for sponsors, funders, type of intervention and associated publications, once completed. Results IICTs involving the Czech Republic and Portugal were n = 439 (42% with hospitals as sponsors) and n = 328 (47% with universities as sponsors), respectively. The Czech Republic and Portuguese funding agencies supported respectively 61 and 27 IICTs. Among these, trials with medicinal products represent 52% in Czech Republic and 4% in Portugal. In the first, a higher percentage of IICTs&apos; publications in high impact factor journals with national investigators as authors was observed, when compared to Portugal (75% vs 15%). Conclusion The better performance in clinical research by Czech Republic might be related to the existence of specific and periodic funding for clinical research, although further data are still needed to confirm this relationship. In upcoming years, the indicators used herein might be useful to tracking clinical research outcomes in these and other European countries.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Investigator Initiated Clinical Trials (IICTs): A Systematic Search in Registries to Compare the Czech Republic and Portugal in Terms of Funding Policies and Scientific Outcomes

Popis výsledku anglicky

Objectives Clinical trials provide one of the highest levels of evidence to support medical practice. Investigator initiated clinical trials (IICTs) answer relevant questions in clinical practice that may not be addressed by industry. For the first time, two European Countries are compared in terms of IICTs, respective funders and publications, envisaging to inspire others to use similar indicators to assess clinical research outcomes. Methods A retrospective systematic search of registered IICTs from 2004 to 2017, using four clinical trials registries was carried out in two European countries with similar population, GDP, HDI and medical schools but with different governmental models to fund clinical research. Each IICT was screened for sponsors, funders, type of intervention and associated publications, once completed. Results IICTs involving the Czech Republic and Portugal were n = 439 (42% with hospitals as sponsors) and n = 328 (47% with universities as sponsors), respectively. The Czech Republic and Portuguese funding agencies supported respectively 61 and 27 IICTs. Among these, trials with medicinal products represent 52% in Czech Republic and 4% in Portugal. In the first, a higher percentage of IICTs&apos; publications in high impact factor journals with national investigators as authors was observed, when compared to Portugal (75% vs 15%). Conclusion The better performance in clinical research by Czech Republic might be related to the existence of specific and periodic funding for clinical research, although further data are still needed to confirm this relationship. In upcoming years, the indicators used herein might be useful to tracking clinical research outcomes in these and other European countries.

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

30300 - Health sciences

Projekt

Výsledek vznikl pri realizaci vícero projektů. Více informací v záložce Projekty.

Návaznosti

P - Projekt vyzkumu a vyvoje financovany z verejnych zdroju (s odkazem do CEP)

Rok uplatnění

2021

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

Therapeutic Innovation &amp; Regulatory Science

ISSN

2168-4790

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

55

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

5

Stát vydavatele periodika

US - Spojené státy americké

Počet stran výsledku

13

Strana od-do

966-978

Kód UT WoS článku

000651680000001

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

—