ArticlePerspectives in clinical research
A crucial role of on-site clinical trial monitoring: Insights from the ethics committee.
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: On-site monitoring by the institutional ethics committee (IEC) is one of the most effective ways to ensure compliance during research conduct. Objectives: The objectives of this study were to analyze the reports of clinical trial (CT) site monitoring conducted by IEC from January 2021 to March 2024 and to assess the impact of the monitoring by analyzing compliance reports submitted by the trial site team. Methodology: A retrospective analysis of site monitoring and compliance reports was conducted after obtaining necessary approvals from IEC. Results: The present study analyzed 22 reports of site monitoring conducted from 2021 to 2024. A total of 56 deviations were observed during monitoring. The most common deviations observed were related to documentation and record-keeping (31/56). In many cases, logs were incomplete (10/56). Traveling allowance (TA) was given but receipt was not maintained (4/56). Major observed were deducting expenses of consumables from TA, not giving TA and ICF was not signed and dated by patient/LAR. Based on monitoring report, query letters were sent to respective PIs with instructions to submit explanations and compliance reports. The PIs submitted compliance report mentioning CAPA in response to deviations pointed out by ethics committee monitoring team and submitted their reports to the IEC. The percentage improvement in ethical conduct of trials was 96.42%. Conclusion: In the present study, active trial site monitoring helped the IEC to identify deviations that were impossible to identify by passive monitoring. Majority of deviations were resolved after being pointed out by IEC highlighting the importance of active monitoring. Thus, on-site CT monitoring is a critical aspect of ethical oversight, ensuring participant safety, maintaining data integrity and credibility, detecting compliance issues, and enhancing trust and transparency.
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.