Stick to the protocol, but… [Design Issues]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2014-12-18 15:02 (4205 d 10:17 ago) – Posting: # 14109
Views: 16,014

Hi cher0424,

❝ You mean no retesting in drug abuse or other clinic exam also?


The former. Other re-tests are common.

❝ TCA isn't listed in protocol, but can be test out in our drug abuse test card. So here is a pratical operated problem. The protocol writer didn't combine the reality with protocol. So all the things just refer to the protocol, then ignore the positive result of TCA?


Formally yes. Whether you want a volunteer on TCAs in the study is another question. Common sense: Given the side-effects of TCAs I don’t think that the subject took them for fun. I guess the pre-study exam contains a complete anamnesis (including neurologic or psychiatric illness, prior/present medication & therapy). Maybe he/she lied? Even if there are no inter­actions possible with the study’s drug, I would exclude the subject.
If the subject will jump out of the window in a suicidal episode, would the PI keep him/her in the study only because this was not foreseen as one of the exclusion criteria in the protocol?

Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна! [image]
Helmut Schütz
[image]

The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,655 posts in 4,993 threads, 1,571 registered users;
131 visitors (0 registered, 131 guests [including 28 identified bots]).
Forum time: 02:20 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Scientists often have a naïve faith that
if only they could discover enough facts about a problem,
these facts would somehow arrange themselves
in a compelling and true solution.    Theodosius Dobzhansky

The Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum is hosted by
BEBAC Ing. Helmut Schütz
HTML5