Why clinical trials in disc regeneration strive to achieve completion: Insights from publication status and funding sources
JOR Spine, ISSN: 2572-1143, Vol: 7, Issue: 2, Page: e1329
2024
- 3Citations
- 7Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations3
- Citation Indexes3
- CrossRef1
- Captures7
- Readers7
Article Description
Background: Chronic discogenic low back pain (LBP) poses a significant global burden, yet effective therapeutic interventions directly targeting the underlying degenerative process remain elusive. After demonstrating promising results in preclinical studies, intradiscal injection of cell-based treatments has been increasingly investigated in the clinical setting. However, most clinical trials failed to reach publication, with the few available reports showing only minor improvements. The aim of this study was to analyze the prospective clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov investigating cell therapies for LBP, with a specific emphasis on identifying critical obstacles hindering study completion, including trial design and funding sources. Methods: A systematic search of prospective clinical trials investigating cell-based treatments for chronic LBP due to intervertebral disc degeneration was performed on ClinicalTrials.gov. Extracted data encompassed study design, recruitment, experimental treatment modalities, investigated outcomes, current status, completion date, publication status, and funding sources. Fisher's exact test assessed associations between categorical variables, while a multiple logistic regression model aimed to identify factors potentially linked to the publication status of the studies. Results: Our search identified 26 clinical trials. Among these, only 7 (26.9%) were published, and none of the other studies marked as completed reported any results on ClinicalTrials.gov. Fifty percent of included trials were funded by universities, whereas the rest was sponsored by industry (38.5%) or private institutions (11.5%). Experimental treatments primarily involved cell-based or cell-derived products of varying sources and concentrations. Products containing carriers, such as hyaluronic acid or fibrin, were more frequently funded by industry and private organizations (p = 0.0112). No significant differences emerged when comparing published and nonpublished studies based on funding, as well as between publication status and other variables. Conclusion: Most clinical trials exploring cell-based disc regenerative therapies for chronic LBP have never reached completion, with only a small fraction reporting preliminary data in publications.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know