ArticleClinical and translational science2024
Pooled analysis of routine safety parameters observed in healthy participants at baseline and following placebo administration in early phase clinical studies.
Article in Clinical and translational science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Optimized communication during risk disclosure to reduce nocebo headache after lumbar puncture-a study protocol for a randomized controlled clinical trial.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Pooled analysis of routine safety parameters observed in healthy participants at baseline and following placebo administration in early phase clinical studies.Clinical and translational science · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Phase I trials inform on the initial safety profile of a new molecule and impact whether further development is pursued or not. Understanding the effect of non-pharmacological factors on the variability of routine safety parameters could improve decision making in these early clinical trials, helping to separate signals related to the new molecule from background "noise." To understand the impact of non-pharmacological factors on routine safety parameters, we evaluated pooled safety data from over 1000 healthy participants treated with placebo in phase I trials between 2009 and 2018. The phase I participants were predominantly men, less than or equal to 50 years, White, and non-Hispanic; and approximately an equal proportion had body mass index in the normal and overweight/obese range. Following administration of placebo, vital signs, electrocardiogram, and laboratory parameters remained near predose baseline values. Large changes from baseline were observed for many safety parameters, but these occurred in a relatively small number of participants. At least one adverse event (AE) occurred in 49.7% of participants receiving placebo in single ascending dose (SAD) studies and in 72.4% of participants receiving placebo in multiple ascending dose (MAD) studies, with headache being the most commonly reported AE (18.7% in SAD and 28.3% in MAD studies). Overall, these analyses are consistent with non-pharmacological factors having a small impact on routine safety parameters in a phase I trial. The provided supplemental data may be used to contextualize the magnitude and frequency of abnormal safety values and AEs observed in phase I trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.