ArticleClinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico2017
New clinical trials regulation in Spain: analysis of royal decree 1090/2015.
Article in Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Low-intervention clinical trials in Spain: Do they progress?British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Article
- Ethical review of patient safety and public health in EU clinical trials legislation: impact of COVID-19 pandemic.Romanian journal of morphology and embryology = Revue roumaine de morphologie et embryologie · 2020Article
- 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The coming into force of Directive 2001/20/EC represented a step forward in harmonising clinical trial regulation in European countries, guaranteeing a uniform protection of subjects participating in clinical research across Europe. However, it led to a disproportionate increase in the bureaucratization, and thus, it became evident that procedures needed to be simplified without detriment to patient's safety. Thus, Regulation 536/2014, that repealed Directive 2001/20/EC, with the aim of decreasing the growing bureaucratization and stimulating clinical research in Europe, established simplified procedures, such as regulating a common procedure for authorising trials in Europe, the institution of strict assessment timelines, or the definition of new concepts, such as "low-intervention clinical trial". The legal form of a Regulation allowed the norm to be directly applied to Member States without the need for transposition. By means of the new Royal Decree, the national legislation is adapted to make the application of the regulation feasible and it allows the development of the aspects that the Regulation leaves to national legislation. Both documents seek to stimulate clinical research with medicinal products to foster knowledge, facilitate transparency, and reinforce subjects' safety. This will surely be the case, but with this revision, we will look at the novelties and key aspects that are most relevant to investigators and we will analyse the consequences for all parties involved in clinical research.
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.