0 Datasets
0 Files
Get instant academic access to this publication’s datasets.
Yes. After verification, you can browse and download datasets at no cost. Some premium assets may require author approval.
Files are stored on encrypted storage. Access is restricted to verified users and all downloads are logged.
Yes, message the author after sign-up to request supplementary files or replication code.
Join 50,000+ researchers worldwide. Get instant access to peer-reviewed datasets, advanced analytics, and global collaboration tools.
✓ Immediate verification • ✓ Free institutional access • ✓ Global collaborationJoin our academic network to download verified datasets and collaborate with researchers worldwide.
Get Free AccessObjectives European regulations do not allow modification or waiver of informed consent for medicines randomized controlled trials (RCTs) where the three 2016 Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) provisions are met (consent would be impractical or unfeasible, yet the trial would have high social value and pose no or minimal risk to participants). We aimed to identify whether any such trials of medicines were being conducted in Europe. Study Design and Setting This is a survey of all phase 4 “ongoing” RCTs on the EU clinical trial register between July 1, 2016 and June 30, 2018, to identify those with potentially high levels of pragmatism. Trials that were excluded were as follows: those conducted on rare diseases; conducted on healthy volunteers (except those assessing vaccines); masked (single-, double-blind) trials; single-center trials; those where one could expect to lead patients to prefer one intervention over the other; and miscellaneous reasons. The degree of pragmatism of the RCTs was self-assessed by trials' investigators by means of the PRECIS-2 tool. Investigators of those trials considered to be highly pragmatic assessed the fulfillment of the three CIOMS provisions. Seven patients assessed the social value of the RCTs. Finally, 33 members of 11 research ethics committees (RECs) assessed the social value of the trials and whether they posed no more than minimal risk to participants. Investigators, patients, and REC members assessed the fulfillment of the CIOMS provisions as “yes,” “not sure” or “no.” Results Of the 638 phase 4 trials, 420 were RCTs, and 21 of these (5%) were candidates to be pragmatic. Investigators of 15 of these 21 RCTs self-assessed their trial's degree of pragmatism: 14 were highly pragmatic. Of these 14, eight fulfilled the three CIOMS provisions. Assessments by patients and RECs were inconsistent for several trials. Conclusions We found few low-risk participant-level pragmatic RCTs that could be suitable for modified or waived participants' informed consent. European regulators should consider amending the current regulation and encouraging the conduct of such trials.
Rafael Dal‐Ré, C. Avendaño, Anthonius de Boer, Stephan K. James, Frits R. Rosendaal, Richard Stephens, John P. A. Ioannidis (2019). A limited number of medicines pragmatic trials had potential for waived informed consent following the 2016 CIOMS ethical guidelines. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 114, pp. 60-71, DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.06.007.
Datasets shared by verified academics with rich metadata and previews.
Authors choose access levels; downloads are logged for transparency.
Students and faculty get instant access after verification.
Type
Article
Year
2019
Authors
7
Datasets
0
Total Files
0
Language
English
Journal
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
DOI
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.06.007
Access datasets from 50,000+ researchers worldwide with institutional verification.
Get Free Access