Evidence map›Paper›PMID 8939118›Full record

ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)1996

Pharmaceutical trials in general practice: the first 100 protocols. An audit by the clinical research ethics committee of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

P Wise, M Drury

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 1996. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Supporting ethical practice in primary care research: strategies for action.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2002
    Article
  10. Ethics in exercise science research.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2002
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

P WiseRoyal College of General Practitioners, London.
M Drury

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess the outcome of 100 general practice based, multicentre research projects submitted to the ethics committee of the Royal College of General Practitioners by pharmaceutical companies or their agents between 1984 and 1989.

designAnalysis of consecutive submitted protocols for stated objectives, study design, and outcomes; detailed review of committee minutes and correspondence in relation to amendment and approval; assessment of final reports submitted at conclusion of studies. SUBJECTS: 82 finally approved protocols, embracing 34,523 proposed trial subjects and 1195 proposed general practice investigators.

main outcome measuresSuccess at enrolling subjects and investigators; commencement and completion data; validity of final report's assessment of efficacy, safety, tolerability, and acceptability; and method of use and dissemination of findings.

results18 studies were not approved and 45 had to be amended. Randomised controlled trials comprised 46 of the original submissions. Remuneration considerations, inadequate information or consent sheets, pregnancy safety, the need to discontinue existing therapy, and suboptimal scientific content were major reasons for rejecting studies or asking for amendments. Of the 82 approved studies 8 were not started. Shortfalls of investigators (of 39%) and trial subjects (of 37%) and an overall 23% withdrawal rate were responsible for a significant incidence of inconclusive results. Within the six year follow up interval, only 19 of the studies had been formally published.

conclusionsThis audit identified substantial ethical concerns in the process of approving multicentre general practice pharmaceutical research.

Indexed as

Drug TherapyEthical ReviewEthics Committees, ResearchMulticenter Studies as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTherapeutic Human ExperimentationClinical ProtocolsConsent FormsEthics, MedicalFamily PracticeHumansInformation DisseminationMedical AuditPatient SelectionResearch SubjectsBiomedical and Behavioral ResearchEmpirical ApproachRoyal College of General Practitioners

Identifiers

PMID8939118
PMCPMC2352557

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.