ArticleHealth research policy and systems2016
Input analysis for two public consultations on the EU Clinical Trials Regulation.
Article in Health research policy and systems, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe European Union's (EU) Clinical Trials Directive was replaced by an EU-Regulation as of 2016. The policy revision process was subject to a formal impact assessment exercised by the European Commission (EC) from 2008 to 2014. Following the EU principles of Good Governance, deliberation with stakeholders was an integral part of this impact assessment and the policy formulation process. Hence, two public consultations (PCs) were held by the EC in 2009 and 2011, respectively. Various stakeholders contributed and submitted their written input to the EC. Though often cited in the further revision process, the input gathered in the PC was not communicated with full transparency and it is unclear how and to what extent the input has been processed and used in the policy formulation. The objective of this study was an analysis of submissions to both PCs in order to systematically present what topics have been discussed and which possible policy options have been raised by the stakeholders.
methodsAll written submissions publicly available were downloaded from the EC's homepage and assessed for stakeholder characteristics. Thematic text analysis was applied to assess the full text of a random sample of 33% of these submissions.
resultsA total of 198 different stakeholders from the EU and the United States of America contributed to one or both of the two PCs. In total, 44 various themes have been addressed that could be clustered under 24 main themes, including the articulation of problems as well as possible policy solutions to face these problems.
conclusionThe two PCs on the Clinical Trials Directive were highly appreciated by the various stakeholders and their input allowed an in-depth view on their particular interests. This input provided a rich source of information for all stakeholders in the field of clinical trials as well as to the EC's impact assessment. Although the EC obviously gathered a large quantity of expert knowledge on practical implications of trials legislation by consulting stakeholders, it remained unclear how this input was used in the development of the new regulation. For the sake of transparency, it is recommended that in future PCs the EC uses better standardized methods for a more transparent analysis and presentation of results.
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.