ArticleBMC medical ethics2026
Ethics and regulatory guidance to address the challenges encountered in research on rare diseases in a multinational dimension: the experience of a European funded programme.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The rare diseases (RD) research framework presents unique challenges, impacting on ethics and regulatory compliance. Sixty-five projects funded by the European Joint Programme for Rare Diseases (EJP RD) were analysed to identify key ethics and regulatory issues encountered by researchers and to describe the ethics and regulatory guidance provided in the framework of this European-funded Programme. These projects underwent the Ethics Follow-up process throughout their lifecycle.Most of the projects (58) addressed issues related to human participants and personal data, with 28 processing genetic data, 26 handling biospecimens, 24 involving children, and 30 engaging with non-EU countries. The consistent guidance provided to researchers played a significant role in achieving a high level of ethical compliance. Only 5 projects were unable to complete the Ethics Follow-up process, and 10 showed deviations. The most common issues were delayed ethics approvals (7 projects) and missing informed consent or assent documents (6 projects). Among the 60 projects that completed the process, 50 fully adhered to all ethical provisions, while 8 did not meet at least one ethical requirement.Interestingly, regulatory procedures were predominantly overlooked, with only 2 projects reporting their implementation. This highlights a gap in researchers’ awareness of the critical role of regulatory compliance in ensuring research credibility and translational success.Our findings emphasize that while EJP RD’s guidance significantly supported ethics compliance, a more robust focus on regulatory awareness is essential. Initiatives to improve understanding of regulatory landscapes and their integration into RD research are urgently needed.
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.