C Madeira1,2,3,4, L Hořavová5,6, F Dos Santos2, J R Batuca1,2,3, K Nebeska1,5, L Součková1,5,7,8, C Kubiak1, J Demotes1, R Demlová5,7,8, E C Monteiro9,10. 1. European Clinical Research Infrastructure Network (ECRIN), Paris, France. 2. Portuguese Clinical Research Infrastructure Network (PtCRIN), Lisbon, Portugal. 3. Chronic Diseases Research Centre (CEDOC), NOVA Medical School, Universidade NOVA de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal. 4. Comprehensive Health Research Centre (CHRC), Lisbon, Portugal. 5. Department of Pharmacology, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic. 6. Department of Applied Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Veterinary and Pharmaceutical Sciences Brno, Brno, Czech Republic. 7. University Hospital St. Anne's Brno - International Clinical Research Centre, Brno, Czech Republic. 8. Department of Clinical Trials, Masaryk Memorial Cancer Institute Brno, Brno, Czech Republic. 9. Portuguese Clinical Research Infrastructure Network (PtCRIN), Lisbon, Portugal. emilia.monteiro@nms.unl.pt. 10. Chronic Diseases Research Centre (CEDOC), NOVA Medical School, Universidade NOVA de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal. emilia.monteiro@nms.unl.pt.
Abstract
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' 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.
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' 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.
Authors: Nuno Almeida; José M Romãozinho; Maria M Donato; Cristina Luxo; Olga Cardoso; Maria A Cipriano; Carol Marinho; Carlos Sofia Journal: Helicobacter Date: 2014-02-10 Impact factor: 5.753
Authors: Catarina Madeira; Francisco Santos; Christine Kubiak; Jacques Demotes; Emília Carreira Monteiro Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-05-14 Impact factor: 2.692