Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31690260›Full record

ReviewBMC medical research methodology2019

European Medicines Agency Policy 0070: an exploratory review of data utility in clinical study reports for academic research.

Jean-Marc Ferran, Sarah J Nevitt

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC medical research methodology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Clinical Trial Data Transparency in the EU: Is the New Clinical Trials Regulation a Game-Changer?IIC; international review of industrial property and copyright law · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Optimizing the synthesis of clinical trial data using sequential trees.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2021
    Article
  9. 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

2 authors.

Jean-Marc FerranQualiance ApS, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Sarah J NevittDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Block F, Waterhouse Building, 1-5 Brownlow Street, Liverpool, L69 3GL, UK. sjn16@liverpool.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-9988-2709

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical study reports (CSRs) have been increasingly utilised within academic research in recent years. European Medicines Agency (EMA) Policy 0070 'Phase 1,' which came into effect in January 2015, requires the publication of regulatory documents such as CSRs from central applications in an anonymised format. EMA Policy 0070 requires sponsors to demonstrate careful consideration of data utility within anonymised CSRs published within the scope of the policy, yet the concept of data utility is not clearly defined in the associated anonymisation guidance.

objectiveTo review the use of data from CSRs in published academic research and to hypothesise the potential data utility of CSRs anonymised under the objectives of EMA Policy 0070 for future academic research.

methodsReview of the objectives, research methodologies and findings of academic research reports using unpublished data from CSRs (prior to EMA Policy 0070). Semi-structured interviews with authors of academic research reports, including questions related to data utility of anonymised CSRs published under EMA Policy 0070.

resultsThirteen academic research reports were identified and reviewed. The research purposes ranged from assessment of reporting bias, comparison of methods and results with published data sources, detailed evaluation of harms and adverse events, re-analysis and novel analyses including systematic reviews and meta-analysis. All of the examples identified required access to the methods and results sections of CSRs (including aggregated summary tables) and research purposes relating to evaluation of adverse events also required access to participant narratives. Retaining anonymised participant narratives relating to interventions, findings and events, while maintaining an acceptably low risk of participant re-identification, may provide an important gain in data utility and further understanding of drug safety profiles.

conclusionsThis work provides an initial insight into the previous use of CSR data and current practices for including regulatory data in academic research. This work also provides early guidance to qualitatively assess and document data utility within anonymised CSRs published under EMA Policy 0070.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchClinical Trials as TopicDrug IndustryEuropeHumansPeriodicals as TopicPublication BiasResearch ReportTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalAnonymisedClinical study reportsData utilityPolicy 0070RegulatoryReview

Identifiers

PMID31690260
PMCPMC6833240

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.