Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20729252›Full record

ArticleClinical trials (London, England)2010

Regulatory impediments jeopardizing the conduct of clinical trials in Europe funded by the National Institutes of Health.

James D Neaton, Abdel Babiker, Mark Bohnhorst, Janet Darbyshire, Eileen Denning, Arnie Frishman, Jesper Grarup, Gregg Larson, Jens Lundgren

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical trials (London, England), 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Strategy management in collaborative clinical research partnerships.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2021
    Article
  8. NIAID ClinRegs-a Public Database of Country Clinical Research Regulatory and Ethics Requirements: Design and Utilization Analysis.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2021
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. New clinical trials regulation in Spain: analysis of royal decree 1090/2015.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2017
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

James D NeatonDivision of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55414, USA. jim@ccbr.umn.edu
Abdel Babiker
Mark Bohnhorst
Janet Darbyshire
Eileen Denning
Arnie Frishman
Jesper Grarup
Gregg Larson
Jens Lundgren

Funding

International Network for Strategic Initiatives in Global HIV Trials (INSIGHT)U01AI068641 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI NEATON, JAMES DENNIS · 2006 to 2010
$120.1M
Medical Research Council MC_U122886352NIAID NIH HHS U01 AI068641NIAID NIH HHS U01-AI068641
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA number of reports have highlighted problems of conducting publicly funded trials in Europe as a consequence of the European Union (EU) Clinical Trials Directive. The impact of the EU Directive on multi-national trials, which include sites in Europe that are funded by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) have not been described.

methodsFour problems in the conduct of two international HIV treatment trials funded by NIH in the EU are described: (1) conflicting regulations on the continuing review of protocols by Institutional Review Boards/Research Ethics Committees; (2) US regulations requiring Federalwide Assurances for sites which are only partially funded by NIH; (3) EU guidance on the designation of studies as a trial of an investigational medicinal product; and (4) EU guidance on trial sponsorship and the requirements for insurance and indemnification. Following the description of the problems, recommendations for improving global collaborations are made to the US Office of Human Research Protections, to NIH, and to the EU and its Member States.

resultsA lack of harmonization of regulations at multiple levels caused enrollment in one study to be interrupted for several months and delayed for one year the initiation of another study aimed at obtaining definitive evidence to guide the timing of the initiation of antiretroviral therapy for individuals infected with HIV. The delays and the purchase of insurance resulted in substantial increases in trial costs and caused substantial disruption at clinical sites among staff and study participants. LIMITATIONS: The problems cited and recommendations made pertain to trials funded by NIH and conducted by sites in the EU. There are many other challenges in the conduct of international research, public and private, that global harmonization would alleviate.

conclusionsDisharmony, at multiple levels, in international regulations and guidelines is stifling publicly funded global research. International scientific organizations and government groups should make the documentation and solution of these problems a priority.

Indexed as

Clinical ProtocolsGovernment RegulationAnti-HIV AgentsClinical Trials as TopicDrug and Narcotic ControlEuropeEuropean UnionGuideline AdherenceGuidelines as TopicHIV InfectionsHumansInternationalityMulticenter Studies as TopicNational Institutes of Health (U.S.)United StatesAnti-HIV Agents

Identifiers

PMID20729252
PMCPMC3108098

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.