Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37798805›Full record

ArticleTrials2023

Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency's "Consultation on proposals for legislative changes for clinical trials": a response from the Trials Methodology Research Partnership Adaptive Designs Working Group, with a focus on data sharing.

Martin Law, Dominique-Laurent Couturier, Babak Choodari-Oskooei, Phillip Crout, Carrol Gamble, Peter Jacko, Philip Pallmann, Mark Pilling, David S Robertson, Michael Robling and 7 more

Erratum issuedAbstract readLetter
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors.

Martin LawMedical Research Council Biostatistics Unit, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. martin.law@mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9594-348X
Dominique-Laurent CouturierMedical Research Council Biostatistics Unit, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Babak Choodari-OskooeiUniversity College London, London, UK.
Phillip CroutMedical Research Council Biostatistics Unit, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Carrol GambleLiverpool Clinical Trials Centre, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Peter JackoLancaster University Management School, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
Philip PallmannCentre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Mark PillingDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
David S RobertsonMedical Research Council Biostatistics Unit, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Michael RoblingCentre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Matthew R SydesUniversity College London, London, UK.
Sofía S VillarMedical Research Council Biostatistics Unit, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
James WasonBiostatistics Research Group, Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Graham WheelerImperial Clinical Trials Unit, Imperial College London, London, W12 7RH, UK.
S Faye WilliamsonBiostatistics Research Group, Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Christina YapClinical Trials and Statistics Unit, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.
Thomas JakiMedical Research Council Biostatistics Unit, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 25350Medical Research Council MC_UU_00002/14Medical Research Council MC_UU_00002/15Medical Research Council MC_UU_00004/08Medical Research Council MC_UU_00004/09Medical Research Council MC_UU_12023/29Medical Research Council MR/S014357/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the UK, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency consulted on proposals "to improve and strengthen the UK clinical trials legislation to help us make the UK the best place to research and develop safe and innovative medicines". The purpose of the consultation was to help finalise the proposals and contribute to the drafting of secondary legislation. We discussed these proposals as members of the Trials Methodology Research Partnership Adaptive Designs Working Group, which is jointly funded by the Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health and Care Research. Two topics arose frequently in the discussion: the emphasis on legislation, and the absence of questions on data sharing. It is our opinion that the proposals rely heavily on legislation to change practice. However, clinical trials are heterogeneous, and as a result some trials will struggle to comply with all of the proposed legislation. Furthermore, adaptive design clinical trials are even more heterogeneous than their non-adaptive counterparts, and face more challenges. Consequently, it is possible that increased legislation could have a greater negative impact on adaptive designs than non-adaptive designs. Overall, we are sceptical that the introduction of legislation will achieve the desired outcomes, with some exceptions. Meanwhile the topic of data sharing - making anonymised individual-level clinical trial data available to other investigators for further use - is entirely absent from the proposals and the consultation in general. However, as an aspect of the wider concept of open science and reproducible research, data sharing is an increasingly important aspect of clinical trials. The benefits of data sharing include faster innovation, improved surveillance of drug safety and effectiveness and decreasing participant exposure to unnecessary risk. There are already a number of UK-focused documents that discuss and encourage data sharing, for example, the Concordat on Open Research Data and the Medical Research Council's Data Sharing Policy. We strongly suggest that data sharing should be the norm rather than the exception, and hope that the forthcoming proposals on clinical trials invite discussion on this important topic.

Indexed as

Information DisseminationResearch DesignDelivery of Health CareHumansConsultationData sharingLegislation

Identifiers

PMID37798805
PMCPMC10552399

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.