IPSIndian Journal of Pharmacology
Home  IPS  Feedback Subscribe Top cited articles Login 
Users Online : 1570 
Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
Navigate Here
 »   Next article
 »   Previous article
 »   Table of Contents

Resource Links
 »   Similar in PUBMED
 »  Search Pubmed for
 »  Search in Google Scholar for
 »Related articles
 »   Citation Manager
 »   Access Statistics
 »   Reader Comments
 »   Email Alert *
 »   Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed420    
    Printed0    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded25    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

 

 SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 53  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 160-169

Current status of in silico, preclinical and clinical study registries across the globe: A systematic review and meta-analysis


1 Department of Pharmacology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand, India
2 Department of Nursing, AIIMS, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand, India
3 Department of Ophthalmology, GMCH-32, Chandigarh, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand, India
4 Department of Gastroenterology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Bikash Medhi
Department of Pharmacology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/ijp.ijp_1090_20

Rights and Permissions

Introduction: Registration of study protocols brings about transparency and traceability and the amount of publication bias can be estimated. In this study, we have collected and presented data regarding clinical study registries, preclinical, in vitro and in silico study registries across the globe. Materials AND METHODS: We searched via Google Search Engine with appropriate keywords e.g. name of country (n = 198), name of continent (n = 7), registry, study registry, animal, in silico, virtual, simulation, preclinical, animal, clinical trial. The overall pooled prevalence of clinical study registries and WHO primary registries in per continent was calculated using Medcalc software. Results: The overall pooled prevalence of clinical study registries were 13% in each continent. The prevalence of WHO primary study registries were 8.9% of the countries per continent. Overall, there are 17 primary registries associated with WHO ICTRP as primary registries, 2 partner registries and 6 registries are affiliated to ICMJE. However, the amount of preclinical animal study registry was quite less (n = 4). Regarding in vitro studies, only country specific in vitro fertilization registries were available, however, in other research domains, registries were absent. Only one simulation study registry was available. Conclusion: At priori study registration is essential to deal with selective reporting. Comparison between study protocol and final report allows us to know the protocol deviations and allows us to evaluate risk of bias and internal validity of the research findings. Although trialists are responsible for the completeness of records, yet the registries must have some measures for their periodic update and quality control of the data.






[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*


        
Print this article     Email this article

Site Map | Home | Contact Us | Feedback | Copyright and Disclaimer
Online since 20th July '04
Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow