Involvement of low- and middle-income countries in randomized controlled trial publications in oncology.

BACKGROUND: We describe trends in participation by investigators from low- and middle-income countries (LMCs) in publications describing oncology randomized control trials (RCTs) over a decade. METHODS: We used Medline to identify RCTs published in English from 1998 to 2008 evaluating treatment in lung, breast, colorectal, stomach and liver cancers. Data on author affiliations, authorship roles, trial characteristics, funding and interventions were extracted from each article. Countries were stratified as low-, middle- or high-income using World Bank data. Interventions were categorized as requiring basic, limited, enhanced or maximal resources as per the Breast Health Global Initiative classification. Logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with authorship by investigators from LMCs. RESULTS: 454 publications were identified. Proportion of articles with at least one LMC author increased over time from 20% in 1998 to 29% in 2008 (p = 0.01), but almost all LMC authors were from middle-income countries. Proportion of articles with at least one LMC author was higher among articles that explicitly reported recruitment in at least one LMC vs those that did not (76% vs 13%). Among 87 articles (19%) that involved authors from LMCs, 17% had LMC authors as first or corresponding authors, and 67% evaluated interventions requiring enhanced or maximal resources. Factors associated with LMC authorship included industry funding (OR = 3.54, p = 0.0001), placebo comparator arm (OR = 2.57, p = 0.02) and palliative intent treatment (OR = 4.00, p = 0.0003). CONCLUSION: An increasing number of publications describing oncology RCTs involve authors from LMC countries but primarily in non-leadership roles in industry-funded trials.

Surname lists to identify South Asian and Chinese ethnicity from secondary data in Ontario, Canada: a validation study.

BACKGROUND: Surname lists are useful for identifying cohorts of ethnic minority patients from secondary data sources. This study sought to develop and validate lists to identify people of South Asian and Chinese origin. METHODS: Comprehensive lists of South Asian and Chinese surnames were reviewed to identify those that uniquely belonged to the ethnic minority group. Surnames that were common in other populations, communities or ethnic groups were specifically excluded. These surname lists were applied to the Registered Persons Database, a registry of the health card numbers assigned to all residents of the Canadian province of Ontario, so that all residents were assigned to South Asian ethnicity, Chinese ethnicity or the General Population. Ethnic assignment was validated against self-identified ethnicity through linkage with responses to the Canadian Community Health Survey. RESULTS: The final surname lists included 9,950 South Asian surnames and 1,133 Chinese surnames. All 16,688,384 current and former residents of Ontario were assigned to South Asian ethnicity, Chinese ethnicity or the General Population based on their surnames. Among 69,859 respondents to the Canadian Community Health Survey, both lists performed extremely well when compared against self-identified ethnicity: positive predictive value was 89.3% for the South Asian list, and 91.9% for the Chinese list. Because surnames shared with other ethnic groups were deliberately excluded from the lists, sensitivity was lower (50.4% and 80.2%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: These surname lists can be used to identify cohorts of people with South Asian and Chinese origins from secondary data sources with a high degree of accuracy. These cohorts could then be used in epidemiologic and health service research studies of populations with South Asian and Chinese origins.