↓ Skip to main content

Factors Contributing to Exacerbating Vulnerabilities in Global Clinical Trials

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pharmacology, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Factors Contributing to Exacerbating Vulnerabilities in Global Clinical Trials
Published in
Frontiers in Pharmacology, January 2018
DOI 10.3389/fphar.2017.00999
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ricardo E. da Silva, Angélica A. Amato, Dirce B. Guilhem, Marta R. de Carvalho, Elisangela da C. Lima, Maria Rita C. G. Novaes

Abstract

Background: Although policies and guidelines make use of the concept of vulnerability, few define it. The European Union's directive for clinical trials does not include explanations for or the reasoning behind the designation of certain groups as vulnerable. Emerging economies from lower middle-income countries have, in recent years, had the largest average annual growth rate, as well as increase, in number of clinical trials registered in the US government's database. Nevertheless, careful supervision of research activities has to be ensured. Objective: To describe and analyze the features of the clinical trials involving vulnerable populations in various countries classified by development status and geographic region. Methods: Retrospective study that involved analysis of data obtained from the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) database between 01/2014 and 12/2014 from countries with (i) highest trial densities during 2005 to 2012, (ii) highest average growth rate in clinical trials, and (iii) greatest trial capabilities. Results: Statistical analysis of this study showed that patients incapable of giving consent personally are 11.4 times more likely to be vulnerable patients than patients who are capable, and that patients in upper-middle-income countries are 1.7 times more likely to be vulnerable patients than patients from high-income countries when participating in global clinical trials. Malaysia (21%), Egypt (20%), Turkey (19%), Israel (18%), and Brazil (17%) had the highest percentages of vulnerable populations involving children. Conclusions: Although the inability to provide consent personally was a factor associated with vulnerability, arbitrary criteria may have been considered when classifying the populations of clinical trials as vulnerable. The EU Clinical Trials Register should provide guidance regarding exactly what aspects or factors should be taken into account to frame given populations as vulnerable, because vulnerability is not applicable to all risk situations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 32%
Student > Bachelor 5 23%
Other 2 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 5%
Unspecified 1 5%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 4 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 14%
Environmental Science 1 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Other 5 23%
Unknown 6 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 January 2018.
All research outputs
#20,459,801
of 23,016,919 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#10,231
of 16,331 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#378,732
of 441,888 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#172
of 272 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,016,919 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,331 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 441,888 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 272 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.