ArticleEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2019
Informational needs for participation in bioequivalence studies: the perspectives of experienced volunteers.
Article in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- What information and the extent of information to be provided in an informed assent/consent form of pediatric drug trials.BMC medical ethics · 2022Article
- Bioequivalence Common Deficiencies in Generic Products Submitted for Registration to the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA).Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe present study aimed to determine the extent of information that healthy volunteers need in an informed consent form (ICF) to support their decision whether to participate in a bioequivalence study, a type of clinical studies involving the testing of pharmacokinetic equivalence of a generic drug with a brand-name drug in volunteer subjects.
methodsThis cross-sectional, descriptive study determined the perspectives of individuals who used to participate in bioequivalence studies, using an electronic-based questionnaire. A 5-point modified Likert scale was used to indicate the importance of each element of the ICF content, with an anchored rating scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (very important) for each item.
resultsOf 300 questionnaires distributed, all (100%) were returned. The respondents considered most items to be necessary for their decision, with the score ranging from 3.25 to 4.60 (mean overall score = 4.16 ± 0.30). The four top-rated items were the "major foreseeable risk" (4.60 ± 0.72), "participant's responsibility during participation" (4.52 ± 0.72), "confidentiality and the limit of confidentiality" (4.52 ± 0.82), and "all possible adverse effects of the drug" (4.47 ± 0.74), while the relatively less concerned items were related to general information.
conclusionsMost elements of the ICF content required were considered as important by the previously experienced volunteers in bioequivalence studies, notwithstanding that some elements were perceived as more important than others. The data from this study could be used to better tailor relevant information in an ICF to the needs of research participants in bioequivalence studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31428815What 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.