Characterizing Clinical Trials in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

Author:

Cai Lawrence Z.1,Patel Ashraf A.2,Thirunavu Vineeth M.3,Hug Nicholas F.4,Song Siyou5,Li Jennifer3,Barghout Robert R.3,Magnani Christopher J.6,Turner Brandon E.7,Steinberg Jecca R.8,Lee Gordon K.1

Affiliation:

1. Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Stanford Health Care, Palo Alto, CA

2. Divison of Plastic Surgery, University of Utah Hospitals & Clinics, Salt Lake City, Utah

3. Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL

4. Stanford School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA

5. University of California San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco, CA

6. Department of Urology, Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, MA

7. Department of Radiation Oncology, Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, MA

8. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Northwestern Medicine, Chicago, IL.

Abstract

Background Clinical trials form the backbone of evidence-based medicine. ClinicalTrials.gov is the world's largest clinical trial registry, and the state of clinical trials in plastic and reconstructive surgery (PRS) within that database has not been comprehensively studied. To that end, we explored the distribution of therapeutic areas that are under investigation, impact of funding on study design and data reporting, and trends in research patterns of all PRS interventional clinical trials registered with ClinicalTrials.gov. Methods Using the ClinicalTrials.gov database, we identified and extracted all clinical trials relevant to PRS that were submitted between 2007 and 2020. Studies were classified based on anatomic locations, therapeutic categories, and specialty topics. Cox proportional hazard was used to calculate adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for early discontinuation and results reporting. Results A total of 3224 trials that included 372,095 participants were identified. The PRS trials grew at an annual rate of 7.9%. The therapeutic classes most represented were wound healing (41.3%) and cosmetics (18.1%). Funding for PRS clinical trials is largely provided through academic institutions (72.7%), while industry and US government constituted a minority. Industry-funded studies were more likely to be discontinued early than those funded by academics (HR, 1.89) or government (HR, 1.92) and to be nonblinded and nonrandomized. Academic-funded studies were the least likely to report results data within 3 years of trial completion (odds ratio, 0.87). Conclusions A gulf exists in the representation of different PRS specialties among clinical trials. We highlight the role of funding source in trial design and data reporting to identify a potential source of financial waste and to stress the need for continued appropriate oversight.

Publisher

Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

Subject

Surgery

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3