ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
The future of Italian phase I trials regulation: lessons from a nationwide survey.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Phase I trials are critical for drug development and require rigorous oversight. In Italy, AIFA Determination 809/2015 introduced mandatory standards and a self-certification model, nearly a decade ago. Its sustainability and impact now warrant reassessment. Methods: A nationwide cross-sectional survey (March-April 2024) was conducted among professionals involved in phase I trials. A 19-item questionnaire explored institutional characteristics, certification processes, quality structures and perceptions of the Determination. Descriptive analyses were performed. Results: Sixty-two professionals responded, mainly Data Managers/Clinical Research Coordinators and Quality Assurance officers. Most centers conducted both industry and non-profit studies. Certification of both clinical units and laboratories was common, but timelines varied widely and preparation was resource-intensive. Over half of inspected centers reported major or critical deviations and voluntary suspensions of certification were not infrequent. Clinical Trial Quality Teams were established in most centers, though key roles were often outsourced. Respondents identified procedure drafting and staff training as the most burdensome requirements and considered parts of the Determination outdated, particularly regarding team composition and personnel qualifications. Comparative references with other European frameworks (e.g., Spain and the United Kingdom) highlight differences in implementation models and timelines. Conclusion: While AIFA Determination 809/2015 has strengthened safety and quality culture, it imposes significant operational burdens, especially on academic institutions. Targeted revision appears necessary to maintain high standards while improving sustainability and competitiveness of Italian phase I research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.