Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36406092›Full record

ArticleMalawi medical journal : the journal of Medical Association of Malawi2022

Ethics and regulatory complexities posed by a pragmatic clinical trial: a case study from Lilongwe, Malawi.

Tiwonge Kumwenda Mtande, Gonasagrie Nair, Stuart Rennie

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Malawi medical journal : the journal of Medical Association of Malawi, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 30% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Tiwonge Kumwenda MtandeCentre for Bioethics in Eastern and Southern Africa (CEBESA), Kamuzu University of Health Sciences, Malawi.
Gonasagrie NairCentre for Medical Ethics and Law (CMEL), Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa.
Stuart RennieCentre for Medical Ethics and Law (CMEL), Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa.
Stellenbosch University · ZAUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · US

Funding

Advancing Research Ethics Training in Southern Africa (ARESA): Leadership ProgramD43TW010511 · FIC · STELLENBOSCH UNIVERSITY · PI MOODLEY, KEYMANTHRI, RENNIE, STUART · 2017 to 2021
$1.2M
ARESA - Advancing Research Ethics training in Southern AfricaR25TW008981 · FIC · STELLENBOSCH UNIVERSITY · PI MOODLEY, KEYMANTHRI · 2011 to 2015
$1.2M
FIC NIH HHS D43 TW010511FIC NIH HHS R25 TW008981
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Pragmatic clinical trials generally rely on real world data and have the potential to generate real world evidence. This approach arose from concerns that many trial results did not adequately inform real world practice. However, maintaining the real world setting during the conduct of a trial and ensuring adequate protection for research participants can be challenging. Best practices in research oversight for pragmatic clinical trials are nascent and underdeveloped, especially in developing countries. Methods: We use the PRECIS-2 tool to present a case study from Lilongwe in Malawi to describe ethical and regulatory challenges encountered during the conduct of a pragmatic trial and suggest possible solutions. Results: In this article, we highlight the following six issues: (1) one public facility hosting several pragmatic trials within the same period; (2) research participants refusing financial incentives; (3) inadequate infrastructure and high workload to conduct research; (4) silos among partner organisations involved in delivery of health care; (5) individuals influencing the implementation of revised national guidelines; (6) difficulties with access to electronic medical records. Conclusion: Multiple stakeholder engagement is critical to the conduct of pragmatic trials, and even with careful stakeholder engagement, continuous monitoring by gatekeepers is essential. In the Malawian context, active engagement of the district research committees can complement the work of the research ethics committees (RECs).

Indexed as

Pragmatic Clinical Trials as TopicDelivery of Health CareHumansMalawiOrganizational Case Studiesantiretroviral treatmentguidelinesHIVpragmatic clinical trialsPRECIS-2 toolreal world dataresearch ethics committeeresearch oversightresearch participants

Identifiers

PMID36406092
PMCPMC9641616
OpenAlexW4309666810

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.