Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21429960›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical ethics2011

A taxonomy of multinational ethical and methodological standards for clinical trials of therapeutic interventions.

Carol M Ashton, Nelda P Wray, Anna F Jarman, Jacob M Kolman, Danielle M Wenner, Baruch A Brody

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical ethics, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Are surgical trials with negative results being interpreted correctly?Journal of the American College of Surgeons · 2013
    Article
  3. Do surgical trials meet the scientific standards for clinical trials?Journal of the American College of Surgeons · 2012
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Conflicts among multinational ethical and scientific standards for clinical trials of therapeutic interventions.The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2012
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Carol M AshtonDepartment of Surgery, The Methodist Hospital Research Institute, The Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX 77030, USA. cashton@tmhs.org
Nelda P Wray
Anna F Jarman
Jacob M Kolman
Danielle M Wenner
Baruch A Brody

Funding

Ethical & Methodological Standards for Trials of Invasive Therapeutic ProceduresR01CA134995 · NCI · METHODIST HOSPITAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI ASHTON, CAROL M · 2008 to 2010
$1.9M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA134995NCI NIH HHS R01CA134995
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIf trials of therapeutic interventions are to serve society's interests, they must be of high methodological quality and must satisfy moral commitments to human subjects. The authors set out to develop a clinical-trials compendium in which standards for the ethical treatment of human subjects are integrated with standards for research methods.

methodsThe authors rank-ordered the world's nations and chose the 31 with >700 active trials as of 24 July 2008. Governmental and other authoritative entities of the 31 countries were searched, and 1004 English-language documents containing ethical and/or methodological standards for clinical trials were identified. The authors extracted standards from 144 of those: 50 designated as 'core', 39 addressing trials of invasive procedures and a 5% sample (N=55) of the remainder. As the integrating framework for the standards we developed a coherent taxonomy encompassing all elements of a trial's stages.

findingsReview of the 144 documents yielded nearly 15 000 discrete standards. After duplicates were removed, 5903 substantive standards remained, distributed in the taxonomy as follows: initiation, 1401 standards, 8 divisions; design, 1869 standards, 16 divisions; conduct, 1473 standards, 8 divisions; analysing and reporting results, 997 standards, four divisions; and post-trial standards, 168 standards, 5 divisions.

conclusionsThe overwhelming number of source documents and standards uncovered in this study was not anticipated beforehand and confirms the extraordinary complexity of the clinical trials enterprise. This taxonomy of multinational ethical and methodological standards may help trialists and overseers improve the quality of clinical trials, particularly given the globalisation of clinical research.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchClinical Trials as TopicDrug TherapyHumansInformed ConsentInternational CooperationResearch Design

Identifiers

PMID21429960
PMCPMC3571710

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.