ArticleBMC medical ethics2025
Ethics review or compliance check? an empirical analysis of 6740 requests for information in Belgian clinical trial evaluations (2017-2024).
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2025. 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
The EU Clinical Trials Regulation (CTR) was introduced to harmonize clinical trial evaluations across Member States while upholding participant protection and ethical integrity. This study analyzes 6740 Requests for Information (RFIs) issued by Belgian Medical Research Ethics Committees (MRECs) across 266 trial dossiers evaluated between 2017 and 2024, spanning both the CTR pilot phase and the initial CTIS implementation. Using framework content analysis, we examined the number and content of RFIs in relation to trial outcomes, sponsor type (commercial vs. non-commercial), and the MREC's role as Reporting Member State (RMS) or Member State Concerned (MSC).Results show a decline in total RFIs over time, mainly due to a reduction in typographical and linguistic remarks, yet significant variability persists in the formulation and scope of ethical feedback. While statistical and methodological concerns remained central in Part I evaluations, RFIs increasingly addressed newer challenges such as decentralized trials, e-consent, and data collection on ethnicity. Part II RFIs continued to focus heavily on informed consent documents. We further observed that MSCs raised fewer RFIs than RMSs for Part I, prompting reflection on the necessity and efficiency of full multi-state review in this section.The study also highlights a growing emphasis on regulatory compliance-sometimes at the expense of ethical deliberation-and the limited authority of policy advisors to correct inconsistencies, despite their expertise. We recommend clearer guidance, formalized roles for policy advisors in quality control, improved pre-submission processes, and limited direct communication between MRECs and sponsors. These findings support ongoing efforts to improve ethics review efficiency and quality under the CTR, with broader relevance for harmonization across Europe.
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.