首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>PLoS Clinical Trials >Ethics approval in applications for open-access clinical trial data: An analysis of researcher statements to clinicalstudydatarequest.com
【2h】

Ethics approval in applications for open-access clinical trial data: An analysis of researcher statements to clinicalstudydatarequest.com

机译:公开访问临床试验数据申请中的伦理批准:研究员对Clinicalstudydatarequest.com的陈述分析

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Although there are a number of online platforms for patient-level clinical trial data sharing from industry sponsors, they are not very harmonized regarding the role of local ethics approval in the research proposal review process. The first and largest of these platforms is ClinicalStudyDataRequest.com (CSDR), which includes over three thousand trials from thirteen sponsors including GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, and Bayer. CSDR asks applicants to state whether they have received ethics approval for their research proposal, but in most cases does not require that they submit evidence of approval. However, the website does require that applicants without ethical approval state the reason it was not required. In order to examine the perspectives of researchers on this topic, we coded every response to that question received by CSDR between June 2014 and February 2017. Of 111 applicants who stated they were exempt from ethics approval, 63% mentioned de-identification, 57% mentioned the use of existing data, 33% referred to local or jurisdictional regulations, and 20% referred to the approvals obtained by the original study. We conclude by examining the experience of CSDR within the broader context of the access mechanisms and policies currently being used by other data sharing platforms, and discuss how our findings might be used to help clinical trial data providers design clear and informative access documents.
机译:尽管有很多在线赞助商可以在线共享患者级别的临床试验数据的平台,但是它们在研究提议评审过程中就地方伦理批准的作用并没有很统一。这些平台中的第一个也是最大的平台是ClinicalStudyDataRequest.com(CSDR),其中包括来自葛兰素史克,诺华,罗氏,赛诺菲和拜耳等13个赞助商的三千多次试验。 CSDR要求申请人说明他们的研究计划是否已获得伦理学批准,但是在大多数情况下,不需要提交批准证据。但是,该网站确实要求未经道德批准的申请人说明不需要的原因。为了研究研究人员对此主题的观点,我们对CSDR在2014年6月至2017年2月间收到的对该问题的每条回答进行了编码。在111名表示自己获得道德批准的申请人中,63%的人提到了取消身份识别,57%提到使用现有数据,其中33%提到了本地或管辖区域的法规,20%提到了原始研究获得的批准。最后,我们在其他数据共享平台当前正在使用的访问机制和策略的更广泛上下文中研究CSDR的经验,并讨论如何将我们的发现用于帮助临床试验数据提供者设计清晰而有用的访问文档。

著录项

  • 期刊名称 PLoS Clinical Trials
  • 作者

    Derek So; Bartha M. Knoppers;

  • 作者单位
  • 年(卷),期 2011(12),9
  • 年度 2011
  • 页码 e0184491
  • 总页数 14
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

  • 入库时间 2022-08-17 12:35:59

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号