Abstract 12662: Differences in Journal Impact Factor(IF) Between Initial and Subsequent Publication of Cardiovascular Clinical Trials-An Analysis From the ClinicalTrials.gov Repository

Circulation ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 130 (suppl_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jasjit Bhinder ◽  
Saurav Chatterjee ◽  
Franz H Messerli
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Thomson Reuters ◽  
Subsequent Publication ◽  
The Mean ◽  
The Difference ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Sectional Analysis ◽  
Journal Impact

Introduction: After publication of the primary outcome of a clinical trial additional data of interest continue to be published -.To achieve high visibility of their findings most authors tend to select journals with a high IF. The IF is often viewed as a measure of journal quality as a whole. Hypothesis: We compared IF of journals where the primary outcomes from a clinical trial were published to IF of journals where subsequent papers were published. Methods: This was a cross sectional analysis design. We analyzed cardiovascular clinical trials from Clinicaltrials.gov. We did not limit our search by date. We chose clinical trials which had 2 or more published manuscripts in journals with indexed IFs. We queried the Thomson Reuters’ Web of Knowledge to determine the individual IF. Results: Our search returned 72 cardiovascular clinical trials from a query of the Clinicaltrials.gov database. The mean IF of the primary index publication from the trials were 27.01 (95% confidence interval-CI 21.96-32.06); while that from subsequent publications from the same trials were 11.72 (95% CI 8.97-14.47). The mean difference in IF of journals publishing the index and subsequent results was 15.28 (95% 2.11-17.96). There was a strong correlation between the initial publication IF and the IF difference with the subsequent manuscript (p<0.001). Conclusions: The initial publications of cardiovascular trials consistently occur in journals with an IF higher than in subsequent publications. The higher the journal IF of the initial publication the greater the difference in journal IF between initial and subsequent publications.

scholarly journals Characteristics of COVID-19 Clinical Trials in India Based on the Registration Data on CTRI (Clinical Trials Registry- India): a cross-sectional analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
P Sathiyarajeswaran ◽  
MS Shree Devi ◽  
K Kanakavalli ◽  
NP Vinod
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Multiple Drug ◽  
Trial Registry ◽  
Clinical Trial Registry ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Cross Sectional Analysis ◽  
Registration Data ◽  
Post Marketing Surveillance ◽  
Sectional Analysis

AbstractObjectivesThe 2019 pandemic of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has prompted several efforts to find safe and effective drugs, but little is understood as to where early efforts were centered. Several clinical trials, both Allopathy and AYUSH medicines have been registered in the Clinical Trial Registry of India (CTRI). We aimed to characterize and extract relevant data registered under CTRI for COVID-19.Materials and MethodsA cross-sectional analysis was performed of clinical trials for the treatment of COVID-19 that were registered in the Clinical Trial Registry of India (CTRI) from 1st March 2020 to 22nd June 2020. Relevant trial records were downloaded, deduplicated, and independently analyzed by three reviewers.Main outcomesTrial intervention, design, sponsorship, phase of the trial, and indicated outcomes.Results233 COVID-19 clinical trials, was registered from India in CTRI. Out of these, 146 were Interventional trials, 84 Observational trials, and three Post-marketing surveillance. Questionnaire and survey-based intervention occupy a significant portion. Randomized control trials are large in number 37.8% than non-randomized. 20% of the trials were recruiting patients, and the Research institution (34%) sponsored more than half of the trials. Global trials are minimal, occupying 3% of total trials and Indian trials were 97%. In most of the trials, the interventional agent is either multiple drug combinations or compound drug formulations compared to single drug administration. Among the trials, 46 Allopathic interventions, 41 Ayurveda interventions, 14 Homeopathy interventions, one in Unani, and 2 in yoga and Naturopathy.ConclusionThis study will provide a background of COVID-19 clinical trials registered in CTRI and provide specific issues observed related to clinical trial designs, which offer information to perform clinical trials on COVID-19

scholarly journals Delays in reporting and publishing trial results during pandemics: cross sectional analysis of 2009 H1N1, 2014 Ebola, and 2016 Zika clinical trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher W. Jones ◽  
Amanda C. Adams ◽  
Elizabeth Murphy ◽  
Rachel P. King ◽  
Benjamin Saracco ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
H1n1 Influenza ◽  
World Health ◽  
Trial Registry ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Cross Sectional Analysis ◽  
2009 H1n1 ◽  
Study Completion ◽  
Sectional Analysis

Abstract Background Pandemic events often trigger a surge of clinical trial activity aimed at rapidly evaluating therapeutic or preventative interventions. Ensuring rapid public access to the complete and unbiased trial record is particularly critical for pandemic research given the urgent associated public health needs. The World Health Organization (WHO) established standards requiring posting of results to a registry within 12 months of trial completion and publication in a peer reviewed journal within 24 months of completion, though compliance with these requirements among pandemic trials is unknown. Methods This cross-sectional analysis characterizes availability of results in trial registries and publications among registered trials performed during the 2009 H1N1 influenza, 2014 Ebola, and 2016 Zika pandemics. We searched trial registries to identify clinical trials testing interventions related to these pandemics, and determined the time elapsed between trial completion and availability of results in the registry. We also performed a comprehensive search of MEDLINE via PubMed, Google Scholar, and EMBASE to identify corresponding peer reviewed publications. The primary outcome was the compliance with either of the WHO’s established standards for sharing clinical trial results. Secondary outcomes included compliance with both standards, and assessing the time elapsed between trial completion and public availability of results. Results Three hundred thirty-three trials met eligibility criteria, including 261 H1N1 influenza trials, 60 Ebola trials, and 12 Zika trials. Of these, 139 (42%) either had results available in the trial registry within 12 months of study completion or had results available in a peer-reviewed publication within 24 months. Five trials (2%) met both standards. No results were available in either a registry or publication for 59 trials (18%). Among trials with registered results, a median of 42 months (IQR 16–76 months) elapsed between trial completion and results posting. For published trials, the median elapsed time between completion and publication was 21 months (IQR 9–34 months). Results were available within 24 months of study completion in either the trial registry or a peer reviewed publication for 166 trials (50%). Conclusions Very few trials performed during prior pandemic events met established standards for the timely public dissemination of trial results.

scholarly journals Disease phenotype analyses of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in Canada and Saudi Arabia

2015 ◽  
Vol 42 (S1) ◽  
pp. S32-S32
Author(s):  
M Alluqmani ◽  
M Alqermli ◽  
G Blevins ◽  
B Alotibi ◽  
F Giuliani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Sclerosis ◽  
Saudi Arabia ◽  
Geographic Location ◽  
Clinical Findings ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Relapsing Remitting ◽  
Similar Disease ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Sectional Analysis ◽  
Relapsing Remitting Multiple Sclerosis

Background: Multiple sclerosis (MS) exhibits a spectrum of clinical findings, especially in relapsing-remitting MS (RR-MS). To assess the effects of geographic location and ethnicity on RR-MS phenotype, we investigated RR-MS patients in Canada and Saudi Arabia. Methods: A retrospective cross-sectional analysis of patients receiving active care in MS Clinics was performed in Medina, Saudi Arabia and Edmonton, Alberta. Demographic and clinical data was collected for each patient. Results: 98 patients with treated RR-MS were recruited (n=51, Medina; n=47, Edmonton); 40 patients were Caucasian (Edmonton) while 46 patients were Bedouin (Medina). Although the disease duration was longer in the Edmonton (5.7+2.3 yr) compared to the Medina group (4.4+1.4 yr) (p<0.05), the mean age of RR-MS onset, relapse rate and EDSS change were similar. The female:male ratio was comparable in Edmonton (35:12) and Medina (32:19), as was the risk of optic neuritis. The likelihood of an infratentorial lesion-associated presentation differed (Edmonton, n=23; Medina; n=13) among groups (p<0.05). Spinal cord lesions on MRI were more frequent in Edmonton (n=18) compared to Medina (n=1) patients (p<0.05). Conclusions: Despite differences in location, ethnicity, and a predominance of infratentorial lesion burden the Edmonton group, the RR-MS phenotype displayed similar disease severity and trajectory in these cohorts.

The Initial Return and Its Conditional Return Volatility: Evidence from the Chinese IPO Market

2014 ◽  
Vol 17 (04) ◽  
pp. 1450022 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Monica Hussein ◽  
Zhong-Guo Zhou
Keyword(s):  
Time Series ◽  
Linear Functions ◽  
Return Volatility ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Variance Model ◽  
Initial Return ◽  
Traditional Market ◽  
Mean And Variance ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Sectional Analysis

This paper investigates the monthly initial return and its conditional return volatility for Chinese IPOs. We find that the mean initial return (IR) and cross-sectional return volatility are highly auto- and cross-correlated, and time-varying. We propose a system of two simultaneous equations: a GARCH-in-mean (GARCH-M) process with an ARMA(1,1) adjustment in the residuals for the IR and an EGARCH process for the conditional return volatility, assuming that the IR and its conditional return volatility are linear functions of the same market, firm- and offer-specific characteristics. We find that the model captures both time-series and cross-sectional correlations at the mean and variance levels. Our findings suggest that the conditional return volatility affects the IR positively and significantly, in addition to the traditional market, firm- and offer-specific characteristics. IPOs with higher conditional return volatility, as a proxy for information asymmetry, tend to be underpriced more. The paper demonstrates the merit of using a conditional variance model, along with time series and cross-sectional analysis to price Chinese IPOs.

Firm Characteristics, Relative Efficiency, and Equity Returns

2009 ◽  
Vol 44 (1) ◽  
pp. 213-236 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giao X. Nguyen ◽  
Peggy E. Swanson
Keyword(s):  
Explanatory Power ◽  
Stochastic Frontier ◽  
Efficiency Score ◽  
Equity Returns ◽  
Firm Characteristics ◽  
Stochastic Frontier Approach ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Firm Efficiency ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Sectional Analysis

AbstractThis study uses a stochastic frontier approach to evaluate firm efficiency. The resulting efficiency score, based on firm characteristics, is the input for performance evaluation. The portfolio composed of highly efficient firms significantly underperforms the portfolio composed of inefficient firms even after adjustment for firm characteristics and risk factors, suggesting a required premium for the inefficient firms. The difference in performance between the two portfolios remains for at least five years after the portfolio formation year. In addition, firm efficiency exhibits significant explanatory power for average equity returns in cross-sectional analysis.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document