Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28567502›Full record

ReviewEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2017

Application challenges of the new EU Clinical Trials Regulation.

Eugenijus Gefenas, Asta Cekanauskaite, Jurate Lekstutiene, Vilma Lukaseviciene

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. 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 · 2020
    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

4 authors.

Eugenijus GefenasDepartment of Medical History and Ethics, Medical Faculty of Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania. eugenijus.gefenas@mf.vu.lt.
Asta CekanauskaiteDepartment of Medical History and Ethics, Medical Faculty of Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania.
Jurate LekstutieneDepartment of Medical History and Ethics, Medical Faculty of Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania.
Vilma LukasevicieneDepartment of Medical History and Ethics, Medical Faculty of Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe purpose of this paper is to discuss the challenges of the upcoming policy change in the field of clinical drug trials due to the shift from the Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC to the new Clinical Trials Regulation 536/2014, adopted in 2014. Although it is expected that the new EU Clinical Trials Regulation will increase Europe's competitiveness in clinical research, the paper argues that some measures to assure protection of research subjects should be taken before the Regulation comes into application in 2018.

methodsThe methods used in this paper are comparative analysis of legal documents and related academic papers.

resultsThe new Regulation serves as an efficient means to harmonize the clinical drug trial evaluation procedures across the EU. However, its application also raises potential challenges regarding interests and safety of research subjects: first, due to the possibility of skipping the assessment and balancing of benefits and risks from the scope of ethical review and limiting such a review to only Part II issues of the assessment report; second, due to direct applicability of the Regulation's rather vague and too general requirements for investigator's qualifications which does not allow the assessors (ethics committees and (or) competent authorities) to introduce higher qualification requirements for the investigators conducting high-risk clinical drug trials in the national legislation.

conclusionsThere is an urgent need to raise awareness and facilitate debate on potential application challenges of the new Regulation.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicEuropean UnionGovernment RegulationHumansClinical drug trialsClinical Trials RegulationEthics committeesResearch ethics

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.