Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32897407›Full record

ArticleBundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz2020

[Data monitoring committees-state of the art and perspectives for the future].

Thomas Fischer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Thomas FischerFachgebiet Klinische Prüfung/Klinik, Bundesinstitut für Arzneimittel und Medizinprodukte, Kurt-Georg-Kiesinger-Allee 3, 53175, Bonn, Deutschland. Thomas.Fischer@bfarm.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe classic randomized and controlled clinical trial is facing new challenges with complex study designs and disease interception concepts. For this reason, data monitoring committees (DMCs) can take on a central function if professionally integrated into the methodical procedure of clinical trials. On this basis, the responsible competent authority and the responsible ethics committee have to verify the substantial charter document in the implicit/explicit approval procedure reflecting the working process of the independent committee.

objectivesThe frequencies and conditions under which DMCs are used in clinical trials was investigated.

methodsThe database of the Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (BfArM) was the basis for statistical analysis concerning the frequency of implementation of data monitoring committees with different criteria over an observation period of more than 15 years.

resultsIn total, 4152 DMCs have been used in 14,135 clinical trials with drugs. The independent expert committee was mostly integrated by commercial sponsors in phase III of the clinical development. The ethics committees were involved with different absolute frequencies. DISCUSSION: Sponsors demonstrate an increasing willingness to integrate DMCs in the methodical conduct of clinical trials especially in the case of new study designs. DMCs could be an important scientific aid in order to assess the implications of coronavirus SARS-CoV‑2 on clinical trials.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials Data Monitoring CommitteesCoronavirus InfectionsPandemicsPneumonia, ViralBetacoronavirusCOVID-19GermanyHumansSARS-CoV-2BfArM databankCOVID-19Data monitoring committeesNew study designsStatistical analysis

Identifiers

PMID32897407
PMCPMC7477738

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.