ArticleContemporary clinical trials communications2019
A descriptive research: Exclusion from submitted clinical data package in the review process of new drug approval due to GCP violation in Japan.
Article in Contemporary clinical trials communications, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn Japan, the PMDA conducted inspections based on GCP in the review process of the submission of NDAs or sNDAs. In this descriptive study, we examined in detail the contents of exclusion data from submitted clinical data package subjects in the results of GCP inspections in Japan for NDAs or sNDAs.
methodsFor NDAs or sNDAs approved in Japan between January 2007 and December 2017, we gathered information about the PMDA's conclusion from review reports, concerning the results of the GCP on-site inspection.
resultsFor 1193 NDAs and sNDAs approved in Japan between 2007 and 2017, there were 37 cases in 33 applications of non-compliance with GCP, including 1 by the sponsor and 32 at the clinical trial site. Of the 32 applications at the clinical trial site, 9 cases were categorized as "General findings" and 28 as "Findings for individual subjects." Of the 9 "General findings" cases, problems related to the IRB were most common (44.4%), while faulty record keeping was the most common (60.7%, 95% confidence interval 42.6%-78.9%) problem in the 27 "Findings for individual subjects" cases. Violations of GCP were mostly found in 2007 and 2009, but few were found after 2013.
conclusionIn this study, we revealed that record keeping was the most common reason for exclusion from the analysis data of subjects in the results of GCP inspections. It is necessary to be careful in maintaining medical records, especially when conducting clinical trials without using electronic medical records.
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.