Has mandatory prospective registration of all studies brought about a change? A 1-year audit of studies registered in the Clinical Trials Registry of India [CTRI] before and after April 1, 2018

• Main Authors: Nayana S Shetty, Rachana A Salvi, Urmila M Thatte, Nithya J Gogtay
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications 2021-01-01
• Series: Perspectives in Clinical Research
• Subjects: database; ethics committee; trials
• Online Access: http://www.picronline.org/article.asp?issn=2229-3485;year=2021;volume=12;issue=2;spage=72;epage=75;aulast=

Introduction: The Clinical Trials Registry of India (CTRI) that initially permitted retrospective registration moved to mandatory prospective registration of studies with effect from April 1, 2018. The present study was an audit that compared registration 1 year post the rule versus a year prior to it. Materials and Methods: All studies registered with the CTRI from April 1, 2017, to March 31, 2018, and subsequently from April 1, 2018, to March 31, 2019, were included for the analysis. The extents of retrospective registration a year pre and a year post April 1, 2018, of all studies were evaluated. Results: A total of 4628 studies were registered prior to April 1, 2018, and 5438 post that. Pre April 1, 2018, 2687 / 4628 (58.06%) studies were retrospectively registered, while post that, 1100 / 5438 (20.23%) studies were retrospectively registered (cOR: 5.46 [5.0, 5.9], P < 0.001). Regardless of whether the studies were PG theses, regulatory studies, observational studies, or interventional studies, there was a statistically significant reduction in the number retrospectively registered post April 1, 2018, relative to the year predating it. Discussion and Conclusion: The success of CTRI's decision to move to prospective registration is seen in the overall reduction in the total number of retrospective registrations from nearly two-thirds in the year predating April 1, 2018, to just a quarter in the year post that, indicating significant inroads made by the CTRI with regard to raising awareness. Some regulatory studies continue to be retrospectively registered and this presents a significant ethical and regulatory breach. This could be potentially addressed by linking ethics committee approval with trial registration.