Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText. Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>

A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

10.1177/1740774515591983 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1177/1740774515591983 C4648234!4648234 !26122923     free     free     free Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 245.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 245.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 245.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Warning: imagejpeg(C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\phplern\26122923 .jpg): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 117       Clin+Trials 2015 ; 12 (6 ): 677-87 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=26122923 |t=2015. A pilot test of the new Swiss regulatory procedure for categorizing clinical trials by risk: A randomized controlled trial |pdf=|usr=}}{{26122923 }} gab.com Text A pilot test of the new Swiss regulatory procedure for categorizing clinical trials by risk: A randomized controlled trial JO: Clin Trials http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=26122923 #FOAvip BACKGROUND/AIMS: Several countries are working to adapt clinical trial regulations to align the approval process to the level of risk for trial participants. The optimal framework to categorize clinical trials according to risk remains unclear, however. Switzerland is the first European country to adopt a risk-based categorization procedure in January 2014. We assessed how accurately and consistently clinical trials are categorized using two different approaches: an approach using criteria set forth in the new law (concept) or an intuitive approach (ad hoc). METHODS: This was a randomized controlled trial with a method-comparison study nested in each arm. We used clinical trial protocols from eight Swiss ethics committees approved between 2010 and 2011. Protocols were randomly assigned to be categorized in one of three risk categories using the concept or the ad hoc approach. Each protocol was independently categorized by the trial's sponsor, a group of experts and the approving ethics committee. The primary outcome was the difference in categorization agreement between the expert group and sponsors across arms. Linear weighted kappa was used to quantify agreements, with the difference between kappas being the primary effect measure. RESULTS: We included 142 of 231 protocols in the final analysis (concept=78; ad hoc=64). Raw agreement between the expert group and sponsors was 0.74 in the concept and 0.78 in the ad hoc arm. Chance-corrected agreement was higher in the ad hoc (kappa: 0.34 (95% confidence interval=0.10-0.58)) than in the concept arm (0.27 (0.06-0.50)), but the difference was not significant (p=0.67). LIMITATIONS: The main limitation was the large number of protocols excluded from the analysis mostly because they did not fit with the clinical trial definition of the new law. CONCLUSION: A structured risk categorization approach was not better than an ad hoc approach. Laws introducing risk-based approaches should provide guidelines, examples and templates to ensure correct application. Twit Text FOAVip A pilot test of the new Swiss regulatory procedure for categorizing clinical trials by risk: A randomized controlled trial ????Clin Trials http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=26122923 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=26122923 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|26122923 }}</ref> A pilot test of the new Swiss regulatory procedure for categorizing clinical trials by risk: A randomized controlled trial #MMPMID26122923 Cevallos M ; Züllig S ; Christen A ; Meier BE ; Goetz M ; Coslovsky M ; Trelle S Clin Trials 2015[Dec]; 12 (6 ): 677-87 PMID26122923 show ga BACKGROUND/AIMS: Several countries are working to adapt clinical trial regulations to align the approval process to the level of risk for trial participants. The optimal framework to categorize clinical trials according to risk remains unclear, however. Switzerland is the first European country to adopt a risk-based categorization procedure in January 2014. We assessed how accurately and consistently clinical trials are categorized using two different approaches: an approach using criteria set forth in the new law (concept) or an intuitive approach (ad hoc). METHODS: This was a randomized controlled trial with a method-comparison study nested in each arm. We used clinical trial protocols from eight Swiss ethics committees approved between 2010 and 2011. Protocols were randomly assigned to be categorized in one of three risk categories using the concept or the ad hoc approach. Each protocol was independently categorized by the trial's sponsor, a group of experts and the approving ethics committee. The primary outcome was the difference in categorization agreement between the expert group and sponsors across arms. Linear weighted kappa was used to quantify agreements, with the difference between kappas being the primary effect measure. RESULTS: We included 142 of 231 protocols in the final analysis (concept=78; ad hoc=64). Raw agreement between the expert group and sponsors was 0.74 in the concept and 0.78 in the ad hoc arm. Chance-corrected agreement was higher in the ad hoc (kappa: 0.34 (95% confidence interval=0.10-0.58)) than in the concept arm (0.27 (0.06-0.50)), but the difference was not significant (p=0.67). LIMITATIONS: The main limitation was the large number of protocols excluded from the analysis mostly because they did not fit with the clinical trial definition of the new law. CONCLUSION: A structured risk categorization approach was not better than an ad hoc approach. Laws introducing risk-based approaches should provide guidelines, examples and templates to ensure correct application. |*Government Regulation [MESH] |Clinical Trials as Topic/*classification/legislation & jurisprudence/standards [MESH] |Consensus [MESH] |Pilot Projects [MESH] |Risk Assessment/legislation & jurisprudence/methods [MESH]A pilot test of the new Swiss regulatory procedure for categorizing cl(epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing