Home  |  About us  |  Editorial board  |  Ahead of print  | Current issue  |  Archives  |  Submit article  |  Instructions |  Search  |   Subscribe  |  Advertise  |  Contacts  |  Login 
  Users Online: 620Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 12  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 133-139

Compliance of Mumbai-based clinical trial sites with the Quality Council of India guidelines and evaluation of the challenges faced by the investigators


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

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Urmila Mukund Thatte
Department of Clinical Pharmacology Seth GS Medical College and KEM Hospital, Parel, Mumbai, Maharashtra
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/picr.PICR_22_20

Rights and Permissions

Purpose: A committee chaired by Dr. Ranjit Roy Chaudhary suggested accreditation of investigators, sites and ethics committees to improve the quality of trial conduct in the country. Prior to accreditation, understanding the challenges faced at the sites by investigators could help define the extent of the problem and identify potential solutions. Hence, we conducted the present study. Methods: Institutional Ethics Committee approval and written informed consent was obtained prior to enrolment. A checklist and a questionnaire was used to assess compliance to Quality Council of India (QCI) standards and the challenges faced by the sites and investigators respectively. Mumbai based investigators listed in the Clinical Trial Registry of India (CTRI) were enrolled. The responses obtained were analysed descriptively. The responses to each question in the checklist were calculated as a proportion and response to each item in the questionnaire was calculated in frequency and percent frequency. All the analysis was done using Microsoft Excel version 2013. Results: A total of 30 investigators from 69 clinical trial sites agreed to participate. We found that over 80% of the sites complied with standards recommended by the QCI guideline. The most frequently reported issues at the site were lack of space for archival (25%), no System to evaluate adequacy of training (31.81%) and lack of understanding of the technical language of the informed consent form (39.02%). Conclusion: There is a need of coordinated effort between all the stakeholders to improve the clinical trial conduct at the site.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 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
    Viewed933    
    Printed34    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded134    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal