@sim0ngates @chrisdc77 @hafetzj @eturnermd1 Yeah, I thought about (and should have said something about) the distinction between industry funded vs academic sponsored trials. The exact process is a bit different but the challenges would be similar-ish. Agree that industry/regulatory bodies would have to be on board.
@sim0ngates @chrisdc77 @hafetzj @eturnermd1 Of course the easiest way to make this happen would be for the major regulators to make it happen. But as Chris (I think?) said a little while ago, this was evidently part of the original discussion for clinical trials dot gov but they didn’t go all the way to RRs.
@sim0ngates @chrisdc77 @hafetzj @eturnermd1 I think some academic trialists might be persuaded or at least attracted by the idea that they could have a much-expedited peer review process on the back end. If can be frustrating to do a trial, write up your results & then spend another year submitting to 3 different journals
@sim0ngates @chrisdc77 @hafetzj @eturnermd1 It would create a little but more work on the front end (though as Chris alludes if you integrated the DSMB and IRB initial protocol reviews with the RR process somehow this could end up washing out I think) but IMO at the end just submitting your results & being published…
@sim0ngates @chrisdc77 @hafetzj @eturnermd1 …would be really nice versus going through a couple different journals and sometimes getting questions that are a bit tedious or asking you to do different analyses
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
