Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35590360›Full record

ArticleBMC medicine2022

Data-sharing and re-analysis for main studies assessed by the European Medicines Agency-a cross-sectional study on European Public Assessment Reports.

Maximilian Siebert, Jeanne Gaba, Alain Renault, Bruno Laviolle, Clara Locher, David Moher, Florian Naudet

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

7 authors.

Maximilian SiebertUniv Rennes, CHU Rennes, Inserm, CIC 1414 [(Centre d'Investigation Clinique de Rennes)], F-35000, Rennes, France.
Jeanne GabaUniv Rennes, CHU Rennes, Inserm, CIC 1414 [(Centre d'Investigation Clinique de Rennes)], F-35000, Rennes, France.
Alain RenaultUniv Rennes, CHU Rennes, Inserm, CIC 1414 [(Centre d'Investigation Clinique de Rennes)], F-35000, Rennes, France.
Bruno LaviolleUniv Rennes, CHU Rennes, Inserm, CIC 1414 [(Centre d'Investigation Clinique de Rennes)], F-35000, Rennes, France.
Clara LocherUniv Rennes, CHU Rennes, Inserm, CIC 1414 [(Centre d'Investigation Clinique de Rennes)], F-35000, Rennes, France.
David MoherCenter for Journalology, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
Florian NaudetUniv Rennes, CHU Rennes, Inserm, CIC 1414 [(Centre d'Investigation Clinique de Rennes)], F-35000, Rennes, France. floriannaudet@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0003-3760-3801

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTransparency and reproducibility are expected to be normative practices in clinical trials used for decision-making on marketing authorisations for new medicines. This registered report introduces a cross-sectional study aiming to assess inferential reproducibility for main trials assessed by the European Medicines Agency.

methodsTwo researchers independently identified all studies on new medicines, biosimilars and orphan medicines given approval by the European Commission between January 2017 and December 2019, categorised as 'main studies' in the European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs). Sixty-two of these studies were randomly sampled. One researcher retrieved the individual patient data (IPD) for these studies and prepared a dossier for each study, containing the IPD, the protocol and information on the conduct of the study. A second researcher who had no access to study reports used the dossier to run an independent re-analysis of each trial. All results of these re-analyses were reported in terms of each study's conclusions, p-values, effect sizes and changes from the initial protocol. A team of two researchers not involved in the re-analysis compared results of the re-analyses with published results of the trial.

resultsTwo hundred ninety-two main studies in 173 EPARs were identified. Among the 62 studies randomly sampled, we received IPD for 10 trials. The median number of days between data request and data receipt was 253 [interquartile range 182-469]. For these ten trials, we identified 23 distinct primary outcomes for which the conclusions were reproduced in all re-analyses. Therefore, 10/62 trials (16% [95% confidence interval 8% to 28%]) were reproduced, as the 52 studies without available data were considered non-reproducible. There was no change from the original study protocol regarding the primary outcome in any of these ten studies. Spin was observed in the report of one study.

conclusionsDespite their results supporting decisions that affect millions of people's health across the European Union, most main studies used in EPARs lack transparency and their results are not reproducible for external researchers. Re-analyses of the few trials with available data showed very good inferential reproducibility.

trial registrationhttps://osf.io/mcw3t/.

Indexed as

Biosimilar PharmaceuticalsDrug ApprovalCross-Sectional StudiesHumansInformation DisseminationReproducibility of ResultsBiosimilar PharmaceuticalsClinical trialDrug approvalReproducibility of results

Identifiers

PMID35590360
PMCPMC9119701

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.