Background: Timely dissemination of clinical trials helps physicians provide the best possible care for patients. Non-publication of clinical trials gives rise to publication bias which distorts data available in medical literature and violates an ethical obligation to study participants. Prior research indicates that a large number of global clinical trials remain unpublished. The Clinical Trials Registry-India (CTRI) is the clinical trials registry of India. We conducted a study to determine the rate of publication of clinical trials related to cancer which were registered in CTRI and conducted in India.Methods: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of the CTRI to determine publication rates. We searched the CTRI for completed interventional clinical trials related to cancer. A comprehensive search for publications of the registered trials was performed by three different investigators. We considered a trial to be published if the study or any outcome data pertaining to the study was accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Conference proceedings were excluded from the analysis.Results: 73 of the 133 trials (54.9%) included in our study were published. Randomized controlled trials were more likely to be published than non-randomized trials (61% vs. 34%, p 0.007). Trials funded by international pharmaceutical companies were more likely to be published than the ones by Indian pharmaceutical companies (72% vs. 24%, p < 0.00001). Trials conducted at a multinational level were more likely to be published than the ones conducted only in India (84 vs. 37%, p < 0.00001). Conclusions:Our study reveals that a large number of cancer clinical trials remain unpublished. This could be due to reluctance on the part of the investigator to publish statistically non-significant results, and sometimes to protect intellectual property. This study reveals there is much scope for improvement in the rates of trial publication and information dissemination.Legal entity responsible for the study: The authors.

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has greatly affected the oncology community worldwide. Lockdowns, an epidemiological measure, have made it difficult for oncologists to provide care. In this study, we analysed the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Croatian cancer care.Methods: This was a multicentre cross-sectional observational study of 422 patients who received systemic oncology therapy during the pandemic. The patients completed a survey to capture their views on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on their cancer care. Univariate descriptive and bivariate analyses were performed to analyse the relationship between the patients' perspective on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer care and the quality of Croatian cancer care and their clinical and sociodemographic data.Results: Discontinuation or change in cancer treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic was observed in 10.2% of cases. Most did not change their place of treatment owing to the lockdown (97.6%). 14.7% of the patients felt that the quality of cancer care received had changed during the pandemic. Conclusions:In the first few months of the pandemic, Croatia had a favourable epidemiological situation. However, 25% of patients with cancer reported that the pandemic affected cancer treatment and the quality of cancer care.

No abstract

Purpose Oncologists are predisposed to developing burnout syndrome. Like other health care professionals worldwide, oncologists have endured additional, extreme challenges during the Covid-19 pandemic. Psychological resilience presents a potential protective mechanism against burnout. This cross-sectional study examines whether psychological resilience eased burnout syndrome among Croatian oncologists during the pandemic. Methods An anonymized self-reporting questionnaire was electronically distributed by the Croatian Society for Medical Oncology to 130 specialist and resident oncologists working in hospitals. Available for completion from September 6–24, 2021, the survey comprised demographic questions; the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory (OLBI), covering exhaustion and disengagement; and the Brief Resilience Scale (BRS). The response rate was 57.7%. Results Burnout was moderate or high for 86% of respondents, while 77% had moderate or high psychological resilience. Psychological resilience was significantly negatively correlated with the OLBI exhaustion subscale (r =  − .54; p < 0.001) and the overall OLBI score (r =  − .46; p < 0.001). Scheffe’s post hoc test showed that oncologists with high resilience scored significantly lower on the overall OLBI (M = 2.89; SD = 0.487) compared to oncologists with low resilience (M = 2.52; SD = 0.493). Conclusion The findings thus indicate that oncologists with high psychological resilience are at significantly lower risk of developing burnout syndrome. Accordingly, convenient measures to encourage psychological resilience in oncologists should be identified and implemented.