Preclinical Efficacy in Investigator’s Brochures: Stakeholders’ views on measures to improve Completeness and Robustness

Martin Haslberger, Susanne Gabriele Schorr, Daniel Strech, Tamarinde Haven
{"title":"Preclinical Efficacy in Investigator’s Brochures: Stakeholders’ views on measures to improve Completeness and Robustness","authors":"Martin Haslberger, Susanne Gabriele Schorr, Daniel Strech, Tamarinde Haven","doi":"10.1101/2022.02.07.22270434","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Research ethics committees (RECs) and regulatory agencies assess whether the benefits of a proposed early-stage clinical trial outweigh the risks based on preclinical studies reported in investigator’s brochures (IBs). Recent studies have indicated that preclinical evidence presented in IBs is reported in a way that does not enable proper risk-benefit assessment. We interviewed different stakeholders (regulators, REC members, industry representatives, preclinical and clinical researchers, ethicists, and metaresearchers) about their views on measures to increase the completeness and robustness of preclinical evidence reporting in IBs.","PeriodicalId":501154,"journal":{"name":"medRxiv - Medical Ethics","volume":"47 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medRxiv - Medical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.02.07.22270434","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Research ethics committees (RECs) and regulatory agencies assess whether the benefits of a proposed early-stage clinical trial outweigh the risks based on preclinical studies reported in investigator’s brochures (IBs). Recent studies have indicated that preclinical evidence presented in IBs is reported in a way that does not enable proper risk-benefit assessment. We interviewed different stakeholders (regulators, REC members, industry representatives, preclinical and clinical researchers, ethicists, and metaresearchers) about their views on measures to increase the completeness and robustness of preclinical evidence reporting in IBs.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
研究者手册的临床前疗效:利益相关者对提高完整性和稳健性措施的看法
研究伦理委员会(rec)和监管机构根据研究者手册(IBs)中报告的临床前研究,评估拟议的早期临床试验的益处是否大于风险。最近的研究表明,在IBs中提出的临床前证据的报告方式不能进行适当的风险-收益评估。我们采访了不同的利益相关者(监管机构、REC成员、行业代表、临床前和临床研究人员、伦理学家和元研究人员),了解他们对提高ib临床前证据报告的完整性和稳健性的措施的看法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they won’t side with the plaintiff: Examining perceptions of liability about AI in radiology Ethics in medical research: A quantitative analysis of the observations of Ethics Committees in research protocols. Ethics practices associated with reusing health data: An assessment of patient registries Simulated Misuse of Large Language Models and Clinical Credit Systems Challenges in Institutional Ethical Review Process and Approval for International Multicenter Clinical Studies in Lower and Middle-Income Countries: the case of PARITY Study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1