The European Directive 2001/20 for clinical research: friend or foe?

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Patients' preferences for enrolment into critical-care trials.Intensive care medicine · 2009
   Article
2. A short goodbye...Intensive care medicine · 2007
   Article
3. Year in Review in Intensive Care Medicine, 2006. III. Circulation, ethics, cancer, outcome, education, nutrition, and pediatric and neonatal critical care.Intensive care medicine · 2007
   Review
4. Doing research on the ethics of doing research.Critical care (London, England) · 2007
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  A change in the Dutch Directive on Medical Research Involving Human Subjects strongly increases the number of eligible intensive care patients: an observational study.2006

Authors and funding

1 author.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as