Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30636288›Full record

ArticleClinical pharmacology and therapeutics2019

Innovation in Regulatory Science Is Meeting Evolution of Clinical Evidence Generation.

Myrto Lee, Hoan Ly, Clemens C Möller, Michael S Ringel

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Regulatory science: The need for empowering Indian innovation.The Indian journal of medical research · 2021
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Should Medical Devices Be Regulated as Rigorously as Drugs?The Canadian journal of hospital pharmacy
    Article
  15. 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 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Myrto LeeThe Boston Consulting Group, London, UK.
Hoan LyThe Boston Consulting Group, Paris, France.
Clemens C MöllerThe Boston Consulting Group, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Michael S RingelThe Boston Consulting Group, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Boston Engineering (United States) · USMNM Consulting (France) · FRPA Consulting Group · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

At the turn of the century, the pharmaceutical industry began a transition toward a focus on oncology, rare diseases, and other areas of high unmet need that required a new, more complex approach to drug development. For many of these disease states and novel approaches to therapy, traditional approaches to clinical trial design fall short, and a number of innovative trial designs have emerged. In light of these changes, regulators across the globe are implementing new programs to provide regular development program support, facilitate accelerated access, use real-world data, and use digital tools to improve patients' lives. Emerging market regulators are also focusing on simplifying their regulatory pathways via regional harmonization schemes with varying levels of ambition. These changes in the external environment imply that biopharma regulatory teams need to adapt and evolve, leveraging digital tools, data, and analytics, and positioning themselves as strategic advisors during development.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicDrug DevelopmentDrug IndustryHumansMedical OncologyRare DiseasesResearch Design

Identifiers

PMID30636288
PMCPMC6593618
OpenAlexW2909914175

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.