Home  |  About us  |  Editorial board  |  Ahead of print  | Current issue  |  Archives  |  Submit article  |  Instructions |  Search  |   Subscribe  |  Advertise  |  Contacts  |  Login 
  Users Online: 872Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size  
Year : 2016  |  Volume : 7  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 81-87

Opinions and perceptions regarding the impact of new regulatory guidelines: A survey in Indian Clinical Trial Investigators

1 Chest Research Foundation, Marigold Premises, Pune, Maharashtra, India
2 Interdisciplinary School of Health Sciences, University of Pune, Pune, Maharashtra, India

Correspondence Address:
Sneha Limaye
Clinical Trials, Chest Research Foundation, Marigold Premises, Kalyani Nagar, Pune - 411 014, Maharashtra
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/2229-3485.179437

Rights and Permissions

Background: Clinical research in India experienced dramatic changes with series of stringent guidelines introduced by regulatory authorities. These guidelines posed significant challenges for the clinical trial industry. Objective: To assess the perceptions and opinion of Indian Investigators about the new regulatory guidelines. Methods: We developed a survey questionnaire on recent regulatory guidelines which was hosted on a web portal. Seventy-three investigators from India participated in the survey. Results: Central registration of Ethics Committees (ECs) was agreed by 90.1% participants, 76.8% participants agreed to compensation of subjects for study related Serious Adverse Events (SAE's). The compulsion to include government sites in clinical trials was not agreed by 49.3% participants while 21.2% agreed to it. Restriction on a number of trials per investigator was agreed by 49.3% of participants while 40.9% disagreed. Participants (50.7%) disagreed to the introduction of audio-video (AV) recording of informed consent, 36.6% agreed and 12.7% were neutral. Discussion: Participants observed that post central registration; ECs have improved systems with adequate member composition, functional Standard Operating Procedures, and timely approvals. Participants agreed that compensation of study related SAE's would assure subject protection and safety. The introduction of AV consenting was strongly debated sighting sociocultural issues in the implementation of the same. Conclusion: Participants endorsed guidelines pertaining to the central registration of ECs, SAE related compensation. Restrictions on a number of trials per investigator and AV consenting were debated ardently. The response of the survey participants who are clinical trial investigators in India showed general acceptance, effectiveness and anticipated compliance to the new regulatory guidelines.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded342    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 3    

Recommend this journal