ArticleEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2016
Trials, Regulation and tribulations.
Article in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Rethinking the role of Research Ethics Committees in the light of Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 on clinical trials and the COVID-19 pandemic.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2022Review
- Application challenges of the new EU Clinical Trials Regulation.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRegulation EU 536/2014 EU introduces a separation between two parts (technical-scientific aspects and locally relevant ethical aspects) in the assessment of applications for approval of trials and provides for each 'Member State concerned' to arrive at 'one single decision' regarding the application for authorisation to conduct a trial. PROPOSALS: The Regulation should be implemented in such a way as to avoid a separation between scientific assessment and ethical assessment; guarantee the absence of conflicts of interest in the institutions responsible for decision-making; promote efficiency on the part of ethics committees. In particular, (i) it is not appropriate to assess Parts I and II of the application for approval to conduct a trial separately (scientific soundness is the principal requisite for ethical soundness); (ii) conflicts of interest should be avoided, especially as regards links with the national authority responsible for drugs regulation; (iii) decision-making in each state should be the responsibility of a single coordinating ethics committee divided into sections specialising in different therapeutic fields; (iv) local committees affiliated to institutions where trial participants are recruited should be able to interact with the coordinating committee, provide consultation services-including on issues of clinical ethics-and promote training in the field of biomedical ethics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26794920What 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.