Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26374686›Full record

ArticleClinical trials (London, England)2015

Considerations in the evaluation and determination of minimal risk in pragmatic clinical trials.

John D Lantos, David Wendler, Edward Septimus, Sarita Wahba, Rosemary Madigan, Geraldine Bliss

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing 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

33 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Leveraging Data Science for a Personalized Haemodialysis.Kidney diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

John D LantosChildren's Mercy Bioethics Center, Department of Pediatrics, Children's Mercy Hospital, University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City, MO, USA jlantos@cmh.edu.
David WendlerNational Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Edward SeptimusDepartment of Internal Medicine, Texas A&M Health Science Center, Houston, TX, USA Clinical Services Group, Hospital Corporation of America, Nashville, TN, USA.
Sarita WahbaPatient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Washington, DC, USA.
Rosemary MadiganPerelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Geraldine BlissResearch Support Committee, Phelan-McDermid Syndrome Foundation, Venice, FL, USA.

Funding

Health Care Systems Research Collaboratory SupplementU54AT007748 · NCCIH · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI CURTIS, LESLEY H, HERNANDEZ, ADRIAN · 2012 to 2017
$15.1M
Heartland Institute for Clinical and Translational ResearchUL1TR000001 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS MEDICAL CENTER · PI BAROHN, RICHARD J. · 2012 to 2015
$13.0M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000001NCCIH NIH HHS U54 AT007748
6 · The paper itself

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

Biomedical ResearchClinical Trials as TopicEthics Committees, ResearchHumansPatient SafetyResearch DesignRisk AssessmentUnited StatesCommon Ruleethicsethics committeesinstitutional review boardminimal riskpatient-centered outcomes researchpragmatic clinical trialresearch

Identifiers

PMID26374686
PMCPMC4703320

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.