ArticleTherapeutic innovation & regulatory science2019
An Institutional Program to Increase Compliance with Clinicaltrials.gov Requirements.
Article in Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Teaming up with the IRB: The Power of Collaboration.Narrative inquiry in bioethicsArticle
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
Abstract
Recent National Institutes of Health policy changes have expanded the number of research studies that must be registered in clinicaltrials.gov beyond the requirements of the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors has also adopted a policy that requires registration of research in a public database. The goal was to increase the transparency of research by reporting the original endpoints of a study, and to discern whether primary endpoints were excluded in subsequent publications. Efforts to increase openness and accountability in clinical trials are likely to strengthen public trust. However, first investigators and study staff must be educated about the requirements, and staff must be prepared to offer support to researchers in navigating the clinicaltrials.gov system. For academic institutions, maintaining compliance requires continuous oversight so that problems can be identified centrally and addressed with investigators. At Wake Forest University Health Sciences, because researchers often did not realize they were out of compliance, we implemented a program to assist them and provide oversight. We introduced standard operating procedures, provided education and assistance to investigators, and engaged leadership about consequences of compliance, resulting in increased budget support for a full-time employee in this role. As a result of these changes, compliance increased from 22% to 92% over 4 months. These approaches may help other institutions become compliant with registration requirements more quickly.
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.