Cited by 11Ethics in Clinical ResearchPharmaceutical studies and practicesBiomedical Ethics and Regulation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Ethical and procedural issues for applying researcher-driven multi-national paediatric clinical trials in and outside the European Union: the challenging experience of the DEEP project

Open access

Abstract

Background: We describe our experience from a multi-national application of a European Union-funded research-driven paediatric trial (DEEP-2, EudraCT 2012-000353-31; NCT01825512). This paper aims to evaluate the impact of the local and national rules on the trial authorisation process in European and non-European countries. National/local provisions and procedures, number of Ethics Committees and Competent Authorities to be addressed, documentation required, special provisions for the paediatric population, timelines for completing the authorisation process and queries received were collected; compliance with the European provisions were evaluated. Descriptive analysis, Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test and General Linear Model analysis were used to determine factors potentially influencing the timelines. The Cluster Analysis procedure was used to identify homogenous groups of cases. Result: The authorisation process was completed in 7.7 to 53.8 months in European countries and in 17.1 to 27.1 months in non-European countries. The main factors influencing these timelines were the requests for changes/clarifications in European countries and the different national legislations in non-European countries. Conclusion: This work confirms that the procedures and requirements for the clinical trial application of a paediatric trial are different. In the European Union, the timeframes for submission were generally harmonised but longer. In non-European countries, delays were caused by national dispositions but the entire authorisation process resulted faster with less requests from ECs/CAs. The upcoming application of Regulation (EU) 536/2014 is expected to harmonise practices in Europe and possibly outside. Networks on paediatric research acting at international level will be crucial in this effort.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12910-021-00618-2

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 Number of additional documents required by Competent Authorities and Ethics Committees. This scatter-plot shows the number of documents required by each country in addition to those required by the EC guidance [5, 6] for each country and the means of EU and non-EU countries. For Italy, the numbers vary according to the 12 sites. For Egypt, the 3 ECs were considered. The numbers behind the country name are the site numbers
Fig. 1 Number of additional documents required by Competent Authorities and Ethics Committees. This scatter-plot shows the number of documents required by each country in addition to those required by the EC guidance [5, 6] for each country and the means of EU and non-EU countries. For Italy, the numbers vary according to the 12 sites. For Egypt, the 3 ECs were considered. The numbers behind the country name are the site numbersCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 2 Time to obtain authorisation/approval by site. This figure shows the timing (months) for getting the CA authorisation and EC approval. The blue bars indicate the time necessary for preparing the CTA; the red and green bars indicate the time from the submission to the EC approval (red bars) and the CA authorisation (green bars). On the left side, data from the 7 countries is provided; on the right side, data is also provided for multi-site national submissions
Fig. 2 Time to obtain authorisation/approval by site. This figure shows the timing (months) for getting the CA authorisation and EC approval. The blue bars indicate the time necessary for preparing the CTA; the red and green bars indicate the time from the submission to the EC approval (red bars) and the CA authorisation (green bars). On the left side, data from the 7 countries is provided; on the right side, data is also provided for multi-site national submissionsCC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 10 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on medicinal products for paediatric use and amending Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92. European Parliament, Council of the European Union (2006) Directive 2001/20/EC, Directive 2001/83/EC and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004. Official Journal of the European Union L 378:1–19
  2. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA–2020–N–0837] Rare Disease Clinical Trial Networks; Request for Information and Comments. Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 105 / Monday, June 1, 2020 / Notices.

Cited by

See all 11

Metadata

Authors
Giannuzzi, V., Felisi, M., Bonifazi, D., Devlieger, H., Papanikolaou, G., Ragab, L., Fattoum, S., Tempesta, B., Reggiardo, G., & Ceci, A.
Affiliations
  • Fondazione per la Ricerca Farmacologica Gianni Benzi Onlus (IT)
  • Consorzio per Valutazioni Biologiche e Farmacologiche (IT)
  • KU Leuven (BE)
  • Harokopio University of Athens (GR)
  • Cairo University (EG)
  • Tunis El Manar University (TN)
Corresponding author
Giannuzzi, Viviana
Venue
BMC Medical Ethics
Published
2021-04-29
Volume
22
Issue
1
Pages
49-49
ISSN
1472-6939 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3133161322
Cited by
11
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1
FWCI
1.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Medical Ethics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Lirias (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
European Commission (261483)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pharmaceutical studies and practices
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Issues, ethics and legal aspects › Biomedical Ethics and Regulation
Keywords
pediatric clinical trials, regulatory timelines, competent authorities, national legislation, EU harmonization, international research networks, non-European countries
MeSH terms
Child, Europe, European Union, Humans, Morals, Research Personnel

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Ethical and procedural issues for applying researcher-driven multi-national paediatric clinical trials in and outside the European Union: the challenging experience of the DEEP project. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/s12910-021-00618-2
The paper
Giannuzzi, V., Felisi, M., Bonifazi, D., Devlieger, H., Papanikolaou, G., Ragab, L., Fattoum, S., Tempesta, B., Reggiardo, G., & Ceci, A. (2021). Ethical and procedural issues for applying researcher-driven multi-national paediatric clinical trials in and outside the European Union: the challenging experience of the DEEP project. BMC Medical Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-021-00618-2