Skip to main content
. 2022 May 14;22:971. doi: 10.1186/s12889-022-13338-y

Table 2.

Characteristics of Indigenous-Australian trials compared to general Australian trials

Indigenous Australian trials
n (%)
General Australian trials
n (%)
Total number of trials 139 9067
Size
 Total number of participants 155,694 2,561,337a
 Median sample size 250 (IQR 100–535) 60 (IQR30–140)
Public Health Involvement
 Public Health-related 59 (42%) 958 (11%)
 Non-public health related 80 (58%) 8109 (89%)
Allocation
 Randomised 97 (70%) 6666 (74%)
 Non-randomised 41 (30%) 2148 (24%)
 Missing 1 (0%) 253 (3%)
Masking
 Blinded 48 (35%) 4273 (47%)
 Open 76 (55%) 3935 (43%)
 Missing 15 (10%) 859 (9%)
Intervention typesb
 Treatment: any 72 (52%) 6785 (75%)
 Prevention 48 (36%) 1343 (15%)
 Behaviour 41 (30%) 1542 (17%)
 Treatment: Other 35 (26%) 2465 (27%)
 Lifestyle 26 (19%) 1016 (11%)
 Treatment: Drugs 23 (17%) 2689 (30%)
 Early detection / Screening 18 (13%) 298 (3%)
 Other interventions 15 (11%) 618 (7%)
 Treatment: Devices 7 (5%) 1270 (14%)
 Treatment: Surgery 7 (5%) 361 (4%)
 Rehabilitation 5 (4%) 728 (8%)
 Diagnosis / Prognosis 3 (2%) 289 (3%)
 Not applicable 0 (0%) 3 (0%)
Primary Sponsorc
 University 72 (53%) 2699 (33%)
 Individual 16 (12%) 1882 (23%)
 Government body 14 (10%) 315 (4%)
 Other 13 (10%) 249 (3%)
 Charities/Societies/Foundations 8 (6%) 272 (3%)
 Other Collaborative groups 6 (4%) 227 (3%)
 Hospital 3 (2%) 1619 (20%)
 Commercial sector/Industry 3 (2%) 868 (11%)
Fundingd
 Government body 107 (79%) 1930 (21%)
 Charities/Societies/Foundations 19 (14%) 1542 (17%)
 University 11 (8%) 1678 (18%)
 Commercial sector/Industry 9 (7%) 1587 (17%)
 Other Collaborative groups 7 (5%) 295 (3%)
 Hospital 6 (4%) 1238 (13%)
 Other 3 (2%) 241 (3%)
 Self-funded/Unfunded 2 (1%) 759 (8%)

a Two outliers were eliminated, each with participant size > 100,000 to avoid skewing of results and minimise misinterpretation of the mean recruitment size between Indigenous and General Australian trials

b Percentage calculations were adjusted by the total number of trials, not the number of entries for intervention as each trial could list up to three intervention codes

c Used ANZCTR data only, as CTgov had no data field for sponsorship

d Used ANZCTR data only, as CTgov had fewer categories that could skew results. Each study could list up to 20 entries