Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29039683›Full record

SynthesisClinical trials (London, England)2018

A systematic review of Federal Drug Administration Docket for community consultation and public disclosure in exception from informed consent trials.

Adrianne N Haggins, Deneil Harney, Sara Scott, Robert Silbergleit

Open access · greenAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical trials (London, England), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Adrianne N Haggins1 Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Deneil Harney1 Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Sara Scott5 Medical School, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Robert Silbergleit1 Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
University of Michigan–Ann Arbor · US

Funding

Neurologic Emergencies Treatment Trials Network: Clinical Coordinating CenterU01NS056975 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI BARSAN, WILLIAM G · 2006 to 2015
$40.4M
NINDS NIH HHS U01 NS056975
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundException from informed consent imposes community consultation and public disclosure requirements on clinical investigation in critically ill and injured patients. In 2011, the Food and Drug Administration instructed sponsors to submit publically disclosed information to the Food and Drug Administration Docket, but to date there has been no comprehensive analysis of available data. We summarized the community consultation and public disclosure practices of exception from informed consent trials published on the Food and Drug Administration Docket in order to better understand the breadth of common practices that exists among acute care clinical research.

methodsWe performed quantitative and qualitative analysis of Docket FDA-1995-S-0036 from its initiation until June 2017 in order to summarize existing practices. We developed a 4-point scoring system to categorize public disclosure and community consultation based on inclusion of key components such as a detailed plan, schedule of events conducted, results, and materials uploaded.

resultsThe 177 docket submissions represented 34 trials. Material related to public disclosure accounted for 49% of pages, community consultation 45%, and 6% other. The median Docket Review Content Score for public disclosure was 3 (mean: 2.5, range: 0-4) and 2 (mean: 2.1, range: 0-4) for community consultation materials.

conclusionThe public information contained in the Docket varies broadly by trial and content. Additionally, as evidenced by the wide range of the Docket Review Content Score, submission guidelines are not followed uniformly. Given the apparent uncertainty about what should be submitted, and the need for best practice recommendations, it is valuable to categorize and summarize existing community consultation and public disclosure content.

Indexed as

DisclosureInformed ConsentClinical Trials as TopicCommunity ParticipationCritical IllnessHumansUnited StatesUnited States Food and Drug Administrationacute care researchcommunity consultationException from informed consentpublic disclosure

Identifiers

PMID29039683
PMCPMC5799022
OpenAlexW2765787392

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.