ArticleBMC medicine2025
Concordance between European medicine agency good clinical practice inspections and medical literature: a meta-research survey.
Article in BMC medicine, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHealth authorities, such as the European Medicines Agency (EMA), inspect clinical sites performing clinical trials and occasionally find evidence of substantial departures from Good Clinical Practice (GCP). However, if the findings are not transposed in the medical literature, publication of those trials may convey inaccurate messages.
methods
objectiveto describe the differences between EMA GCP inspection reports and medical literature on drugs with withdrawn or refused applications.
designa retrospective study comparing studies included in European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs) and the corresponding articles published in the medical literature. Data sources-we screened all EPARs released by the EMA from inception to April 2024 for drugs that were refused or had a withdrawn application. Data extracted-two reviewers independently gathered information on the GCP inspections and their findings. The reviewers checked related publications for mentions of the inspection and any subsequent correction, retraction, or expressions of concern related to its findings. Main outcome measures-the main outcome was the mention of the GCP inspection findings in the publication of the inspected studies. We also assessed whether there was any mention of these findings in a correction, retraction or expression of concern.
resultsOut of 285 EPARs screened, 57 (20%) mentioned a GCP inspection. Fifty-eight distinct studies with inspections had 61 publications. In most of the cases (n = 47, 77%), the study was published before the EPARs. Only 1 publication (2%) addressed the inspection findings. Moreover, there were no corrections, retractions or expressions of concern related to inspection findings. Among the 61 publications, 26 (43%) were related with 24 distinct studies that had an inspection that casted doubts on data reliability, but none mentioned the inspections at or after the time of publication.
conclusionsThis meta-research survey indicates that health authorities' GCP inspections are not reflected in the medical literature, even when the inspections have put the data reliability in doubt. This study raises the question of responsibility for any corrections that may be necessary in medical literature following the publication of EPARs.
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.