ArticlePerspectives in clinical research
Onsite serious adverse events reporting: Seven-year experience of the institutional ethics committee of a tertiary care hospital.
Article in Perspectives in clinical research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Over the years, Indian regulations have undergone numerous amendments, including stringent reporting deadlines, relatedness requirements, and compensation obligations for serious adverse event (SAE). A historic change, new drugs and trial rules-2019, was proposed on March 19, 2019. The purpose of the study was to ascertain whether various stakeholders were reporting in accordance with the evolving SAE criteria. Materials and Methods: Data were retrieved after the Ethics Committee's approval between August 2014 and December 2021. Data gathered before March 19, 2019, were categorized as "BEFORE" data, while the remaining data were categorized as "AFTER." Utilizing causality, on-site SAE reporting, and the ethics committee review procedure, we evaluated the compliance. The data were evaluated using descriptive statistics, and the Chi-square or Mann-Whitney tests were used to compare the "BEFORE" and "AFTER" groups. Results: A total of 77 SAEs were reported in 26 clinical trials, where most clinical trials were phase III. Endocrine projects made up 9/26 (34.61%). In the cardiology studies, the greatest SAE distribution was 21 SAEs/89 participants (23.59%) with approximately 48% of these being vascular. The "AFTER" group noticed a decrease in the total number and length of SAE subcommittee meetings. In the "AFTER" group, there was a significantly higher median number of agenda items/meetings (8 [4.5-10.75]) ( Conclusion: There is acceptable adherence to SAE reporting criteria.
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.