State of the evidence: a survey of global disparities in clinical trials

Abstract

IntroductionIdeally, health conditions causing the greatest global disease burden should attract increased research attention. We conducted a comprehensive global study investigating the number of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published on different health conditions, and how this compares with the global disease burden that they impose.MethodsWe use machine learning to monitor PubMed daily, and find and analyse RCT reports. We assessed RCTs investigating the leading causes of morbidity and mortality from the Global Burden of Disease study. Using regression models, we compared numbers of actual RCTs in different health conditions to numbers predicted from their global disease burden (disability-adjusted life years (DALYs)). We investigated whether RCT numbers differed for conditions disproportionately affecting countries with lower socioeconomic development.ResultsWe estimate 463 000 articles describing RCTs (95% prediction interval 439 000 to 485 000) were published from 1990 to July 2020. RCTs recruited a median of 72 participants (IQR 32–195). 82% of RCTs were conducted by researchers in the top fifth of countries by socio-economic development. As DALYs increased for a particular health condition by 10%, the number of RCTs in the same year increased by 5% (3.2%–6.9%), but the association was weak (adjusted R2=0.13). Conditions disproportionately affecting countries with lower socioeconomic development, including respiratory infections and tuberculosis (7000 RCTs below predicted) and enteric infections (9700 RCTs below predicted), appear relatively under-researched for their disease burden. Each 10% shift in DALYs towards countries with low and middle socioeconomic development was associated with a 4% reduction in RCTs (3.7%–4.9%). These disparities have not changed substantially over time.ConclusionResearch priorities are not well optimised to reduce the global burden of disease. Most RCTs are produced by highly developed countries, and the health needs of these countries have been, on average, favoured.

Measuring the impact of health research data in terms of data citations by scientific publications

“…The results indicated that only a small percentage (7.5%) of health data records had received documented citations by scientific publications. We find the level of data sharing and reuse varies across diseases, just like the imbalance of clinical trials across diseases found by (Marshall et al, 2021). Most recently, Zuo et al (2021) provided a review on novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) datasets extracted from PubMed Central articles.…”

Disparities in access to cancer diagnostics in ASEAN member countries

“…Although an increasing amount of biomedical research is coming out of Asia, ASEAN is dwarfed by output from China, Japan, and Korea, due to an amalgam of forces that include limited resources overall and lower priority given to research by national/government funding agencies. 40 Meta-science research may aid in quantifying research disparities and identifying areas of need. A recent study of stroke research from Southeast Asia found that over 40% of studies came from Singapore.…”

Cancer disparities in Appalachian Kentucky

“…Additionally, rural Appalachians have a higher percentage of later‐stage diagnoses than their urban counterparts, which contributes to increased mortality rates 7 . These disparities are linked to conditions, such as increased tobacco use 8 and obesity, 9,10 as well as social determinants of health like poverty, 10 decreased educational attainment and cancer literacy, 11–14 and decreased access to health care resources 15 …”