Home  |  About us  |  Editorial board  |  Ahead of print  | Current issue  |  Archives  |  Submit article  |  Instructions |  Search  |   Subscribe  |  Advertise  |  Contacts  |  Login 
  Users Online: 738Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

A comparative study to evaluate quality of data documentation between investigator-initiated and pharmaceutical industry-sponsored studies


 Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Seth Gordhandas Sunderdas Medical College and KEM Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

Correspondence Address:
Urmila M Thatte,
Department of Clinical Pharmacology, First Floor, New Multistorey Building, KEM Hospital, Parel, Mumbai - 400 012, Maharashtra
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/picr.PICR_122_18

Purpose: In pharmaceutical industry funded clinical studies (PIS), there is rigorous monitoring to ensure adequate and accurate data documentation. In comparison, the investigator-initiated studies (IIS) often lack in resources and may not follow such quality checks. At present, very limited data on the existing deficiencies in documentation for IIS are available. Hence, the present study assessed data quality in IIS relative to those funded by the industry to identify and address issues in data documentation. Materials and Methods: We evaluated records of 1276 participants in 13 studies (5 – industry sponsored and 8 – investigator initiated) conducted during 2009–2015 using a prevalidated checklist. The percentage total scores for overall documentation and general trial-related and patient-specific documents were calculated. The percentage total scores within the patient-specific documents were also calculated and compared. Between-group score analysis was done by Student's t-test using GraphPad InStat version 5.0. Results: The mean (standard deviation [SD]) percentage total score for the IIS was 80.96 (13.26) and that for PIS was 98.77 (1.84) (P = 0.01). For IIS, the total percentage scores ranged from 63% to 100% while it was above 95% for all PIS. For general trial-related documents, the mean (SD) percentage total score for IIS was 90.39 (13.26) while that for PIS was 97.38 (0.92) (P > 0.05). In the patient-specific documents, IIS scored 80.52 [14.41] versus 98.95 (1.98) for PIS (P = 0.016). The scores for IIS versus PIS (70.22 [21.6] and 99.36 [1.43]) within patient-specific documents were significant only for admission criteria (P = 0.016). Conclusion: Quality of IIS needs to be addressed by greater oversight and periodic quality control assessments.
    
 

  Search Pubmed for
 
    -  Figer BH
    -  Sapra KP
    -  Gogtay NJ
    -  Thatte UM
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed286    
    PDF Downloaded19    

Recommend this journal