EU Clinical Trials Register: useless? [Regulatives / Guidelines]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2018-01-23 14:02 (2370 d 20:33 ago) – Posting: # 18266
Views: 8,524

Hi Beholder,

❝ Saying XML-files, do you mean the special XML "cover" which is used for EU submission (registration dossier)? If so than do you use special software to convert simple pdf to "magic" XML?


Nope. In order to obtain an EudraCT number the sponsor has to create an account / register at the European Clinical Trials Database. The EudraCT number and a completed “Request for Authorisation of a Clinical Trial on a Medicinal Product for Human Use to the Competent Authorities and for Opinion of the Ethics Committees in the Community” is required when submitting the protocol to the EMA (CP) or the chosen reference member state (DCP). From the XML a PDF can be created. What is bizarre: The PDF cannot be electronically signed (a signature is required in Section I.3.2). Hence, one has to print it out, sign it, scan the page, …
Once the study is completed, results have to be provided by the same wacky web-interface.

BTW, interesting the EudraCT Statistics as of December 2017 (renumbered):
  1. Number of Clinical Trials recorded in the EudraCT Database: 52,586
  2. Total number of Clinical Trial Applications recorded by Member State, Competent Authorities in the EudraCT Database: 117,198
  3. Total number of Clinical Trial Site Inspections: 6,734
  4. Total number of EudraCT Numbers requested in response to the question: “Is it anticipated that this EudraCT Number will be used for a Clinical Trial conducted in a third country (outside of the EU/EEA)?”: 0
#2 is higher than #1 since “a clinical trial may involve several Member States. Each Member State creates a record; therefore several records may exist for one clinical trial representing each of the Member States involved. The total given here represents the number of individual Member State records of clinical trials and is therefore higher than the number of separate trials provided under #1 above.”
#3: 12.8% of studies were inspected? Wow! Given that some studies with an assigned EudraCT number were never performed, the percentage is higher.
#4: Zero?!

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
23,112 posts in 4,858 threads, 1,644 registered users;
72 visitors (0 registered, 72 guests [including 17 identified bots]).
Forum time: 11:36 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

It’s always fun to have your models validated,
but is way more fun to have them trashed.
Finding out you are completely wrong
is a great part of science.    G. Randall Gladstone

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