ArticleClinical trials (London, England)2015
Considerations in the evaluation and determination of minimal risk in pragmatic clinical trials.
Article in Clinical trials (London, England), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.
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
33 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pragmatic Trials in Genomic Medicine: The Integrating Pharmacogenetics In Clinical Care (I-PICC) Study.Clinical and translational science · 2020Trial
- Trial
- Empirical research related to the ethics of pragmatic clinical trials: A scoping review.Learning health systems · 2026Article
- Article
- Individualized clinical decisions within standard-of-care pragmatic clinical trials: Implications for consent.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2024Article
- Article
- Design, implementation, and inferential issues associated with clinical trials that rely on data in electronic medical records: a narrative review.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Review
- Use of pragmatic and explanatory trial designs in acute care research: lessons from COVID-19.The Lancet. Respiratory medicine · 2022Review
- Practical steps to identifying the research risk of pragmatic trials.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2022Article
- Justice and equity in pragmatic clinical trials: Considerations for pain research within integrated health systems.Learning health systems · 2022Article
- Ethical and epistemic issues in the design and conduct of pragmatic stepped-wedge cluster randomized clinical trials.Contemporary clinical trials · 2022Article
- Deferred Consent in Neonatal Clinical Research: Why, When, How?Paediatric drugs · 2021Review
- Alternative Consent Models in Pragmatic Palliative Care Clinical Trials.Journal of pain and symptom management · 2021Review
- Leveraging Data Science for a Personalized Haemodialysis.Kidney diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- Ethical and Regulatory Issues for Embedded Pragmatic Trials Involving People Living with Dementia.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2020Article
- Improving the promise of embedded pragmatic trials: Surmountable barriers encountered in an evaluation of home-based HPV self-sampling to increase cervical cancer screening in overdue women.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2019Article
- The ethical justification for inclusion of neonates in pragmatic randomized clinical trials for emergency newborn care.BMC pediatrics · 2019Article
- Article
- Validation of a claims-based algorithm identifying eligible study subjects in the ADAPTABLE pragmatic clinical trial.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2018Article
- Stakeholder views regarding ethical issues in the design and conduct of pragmatic trials: study protocol.BMC medical ethics · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Institutional review boards, which are charged with overseeing research, must classify the riskiness of proposed research according to a federal regulation known as the Common Rule (45 CFR 46, Subpart A) and by regulations governing the US Food and Drug Administration codified in 21 CFR 50. If an institutional review board determines that a clinical trial constitutes "minimal risk," there are important practical implications: the institutional review board may then allow a waiver or alteration of the informed consent process; the study may be carried out in certain vulnerable populations; or the study may be reviewed by institutional review boards using an expedited process. However, it is unclear how institutional review boards should assess the risk levels of pragmatic clinical trials. Such trials typically compare existing, widely used medical therapies or interventions in the setting of routine clinical practice. Some of the therapies may be considered risky of themselves but the study comparing them may or may not add to that pre-existing level of risk. In this article, we examine the common interpretations of research regulations regarding minimal-risk classifications and suggest that they are marked by a high degree of variability and confusion, which in turn may ultimately harm patients by delaying or hindering potentially beneficial research. We advocate for a clear differentiation between the risks associated with a given therapy and the incremental risk incurred during research evaluating those therapies as a basic principle for evaluating the risk of a pragmatic clinical trial. We then examine two pragmatic clinical trials and consider how various factors including clinical equipoise, practice variation, research methods such as cluster randomization, and patients' perspectives may contribute to current and evolving concepts of minimal-risk determinations, and how this understanding in turn affects the design and conduct of pragmatic clinical trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.