Human Subjects in Research

 

 

Exemptions Effective as of 1/21/2019

Research meeting the criteria described in the following categories can be deemed exempt from regulatory requirements imposed by the Common Rule. Exempt review determinations MUST be made by the IRB office and require the submission of a research protocol to the IRB.

CATEGORY

1. Research, conducted in established or commonly accepted educational settings, that specifically involves normal educational practices that are not likely to adversely impact students’ opportunity to learn required educational content or the assessment of educators who provide instruction.
    
   
   This category would apply to most research on regular and special educational instructional strategies, and research on the effectiveness or the comparison among instructional techniques, curricula, or classroom management methods.

   • Established or commonly accepted educational settings are settings where one would go in order to have an educational experience that is regularly offered, or that is commonly accepted in a specific culture or population.
   • Normal educational practices are activities that could occur in the specific educational setting regardless of whether the research is conducted. This includes a variety of activities that normally occur in the classroom or that are considered “best practice”. Examples include established teaching methods (not considered to be experimental) or curriculum, and commonly accepted classroom management techniques that are planned and implemented by the classroom teacher.
2. Educational tests, surveys, interviews, observations of public behavior: Research that only includes interactions involving educational tests (cognitive, diagnostic, aptitude, achievement), survey procedures, interview procedures or observation of public behavior (including visual or auditory recordings) if at least one of the following criteria is met:
   1. The information obtained is recorded by the investigator in such a manner that the identity of the human subjects cannot be readily ascertained, directly or through identifiers linked to the subjects.
   2. Any disclosure of the human subjects’ responses outside the research would not reasonably place the subjects at risk of criminal or civil liability or be damaging to the subjects’ financial standing, employability, educational advancement, or reputation.
   3. The information obtained is recorded by the investigator in such a manner that the identity of the human subjects can readily be ascertained, directly or through identifiers linked to the subjects, and an IRB conducts a limited IRB review to make the determination that, when appropriate, there are adequate provisions to protect the privacy of subjects and to maintain the confidentiality of data.

    
   

   • Research involving children does not qualify for this exempt category if: (1) the research involves surveys, interviews, and/or observations of public behavior when the research team participates in the activities being observed, or (2) if Limited IRB Review is required.
   • Observation of public behavior must not be influenced by the investigator and cannot involve an intervention (e.g., research involving observation of public behavior does not qualify for this exemption if the investigator intervenes with subjects by asking a question or posting a comment with on a public chat room with the intent to change the environment to observe behavior changes.
3. Benign behavioral interventions. Research involving benign behavioral interventions in conjunction with the collection of information from an adult subject through verbal or written responses (including data entry) or audiovisual recording if the subject prospectively agrees to the intervention and information collection and at least one of the following criteria is met:
   1. The information obtained is recorded by the investigator in such a manner that the identity of the human subjects cannot readily be ascertained, directly or through identifiers linked to the subjects;
   2. Any disclosure of the human subjects’ responses outside the research would not reasonably place the subjects at risk of criminal or civil liability or be damaging to the subjects’ financial standing, employability, educational advancement, or reputation; or
   3. C. The information obtained is recorded by the investigator in such a manner that the identity of the human subjects can readily be ascertained, directly or through identifiers linked to the subjects, and an IRB conducts a limited IRB review to determine that the research (when appropriate) has adequate provisions to protect the privacy of subjects and to maintain the confidentiality of data.

    
   

   Research involving children does not qualify for this exempt category.

   • Benign behavioral interventions are defined as brief in duration, harmless, painless, not physically invasive, not likely to have a significant adverse lasting impact on the subjects, and the researcher has no reason to think that the subjects will find the interventions/ interactions/observations to be offensive or embarrassing.
   • Prospective agreement. Subjects must be asked to agree to participate in the research. This is not the same as the requirement for consent, or for documentation of consent. The request may be tailored to the nature of the specific study.
   • Deception. If the research involves deceiving the subjects regarding the nature or purposes of the research, this exemption is not applicable unless the subjects authorizes the deception through a prospective agreement to participate in research in circumstances in which the subject is informed that he or she will be unaware of or misled regarding the nature or purposes of the research.
4. Secondary research uses of identifiable private information or identifiable biospecimens for which consent is not required, if at least one of the following criteria is met:
   1. Publicly available. The identifiable private information or identifiable biospecimens are publicly available.
   2. Not identifiable as recorded. Information, which may include information about biospecimens, is recorded by the investigator in such a manner that the identity of the human subjects cannot readily be ascertained directly or through identifiers linked to the subjects, the investigator does not contact the subjects, and the investigator will not re-identify subjects.
   3. Use of PHI. The research involves only information collection and analysis involving the investigator’s use of identifiable health information when that use is regulated under HIPAA regulations, for the purposes of health care operations, research, or public health activities and purposes (as those purposes are described in the HIPAA regulations).
   4. Use of federally generated or collected information or biospecimens. The research is conducted by, or on behalf of, a federal department or agency using government-generated or government-collected information originally obtained for non- research activities, if the original collection and the secondary use of the information or biospecimens occurs in compliance with three specific federal statues meant to safeguard privacy.

    
   

   • Secondary means re-using identifiable information and identifiable biospecimens that are collected from some other “primary” or “initial” activity; in other words, not for the purpose of the specific proposed study.
   • “For which consent is not required” is interpreted as there are no federal or state laws that require subject consent for the proposed secondary use. During the original collection of the information or biospecimens, the individuals (if asked) agreed to secondary uses that were described in a manner consistent with the proposed research.
5. Research and demonstration projects that are conducted or supported by a federal department or agency, or otherwise subject to the approval of department or agency heads (or the approval of the heads of bureaus or other subordinate agencies that have been delegated authority to conduct the research and demonstration projects), and that are designed to study, evaluate, improve, or otherwise examine public benefit or service programs, including procedures for obtaining benefits or services under those programs, possible changes in or alternatives to those programs or procedures, or possible changes in methods or levels of payment for benefits or services under those programs.

   All of the following criteria must be met under this exemption:

   • The program under study delivers a public benefit or service.
   • The project must be conducted pursuant to specific federal statutory authority.
   • There must be no statutory requirement that the project be reviewed by an IRB.
   • The project does not involve significant physical invasions or intrusions upon the privacy of participants.
   • The project does not involve significant physical invasions or intrusions upon the privacy of participants.

    

   Requirement for the federal department or agency conducting or supporting the project. The federal department or agency conducting or supporting the project must establish, on a publicly accessible federal Web site or in such other manner as the department or agency head may determine, a list of the research and demonstration projects the federal department or agency conducts or supports under this exempt category. The department or agency head can determine what sort of information will be included on this list and maintains its oversight. The project must be published on the list before the researcher can begin the project; however, exempt status can be granted before the publication occurs.
6. Taste and food quality evaluation and consumer acceptance studies:
   1. if wholesome foods without additives are consumed, or
   2. if a food is consumed that contains a food ingredient at or below the level and for a use found to be safe, or agricultural chemical or
   3. environmental contaminant at or below the level found to be safe, by the Food and Drug Administration or approved by the Environmental Protection Agency or the Food Safety and Inspection Service of the Department of Agriculture.

The UD IRB has not implemented exempt determinations under categories 7 and 8 at this time. Brief descriptions are provided here for information purposes

7. Storage or maintenance for secondary research for which broad consent is required. Storage or maintenance of identifiable private information or identifiable biospecimens for potential secondary research use if an IRB conducts a limited IRB review and makes all of the following determinations:
   1. Broad consent for storage, maintenance, and secondary research use of identifiable private information or identifiable biospecimens is obtained in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Rule
   2. Broad consent is appropriately documented or waiver of documentation is appropriate.
   3. If there is a change made for research purposes in the way the identifiable private information or identifiable biospecimens are stored or maintained, there are adequate provisions to protect the privacy of subjects and to maintain the confidentiality of the data.
8. Secondary research for which broad consent is required. Research involving the use of identifiable private information or identifiable biospecimens for secondary research use, if all of the following criteria are met:
   1. Broad consent for the storage, maintenance, and secondary research use of the identifiable private information or biospecimens was obtained in accordance with all of the requirements described for exempt category 7.
   2. Documentation of informed consent or waiver of documentation of consent was obtained.
   3. An IRB conducts a limited IRB review and makes the following determinations:
      • When appropriate, there are adequate provisions to protect the privacy of subjects and to maintain the confidentiality of the data.
      • The research to be conducted is within the scope of the broad consent provided by the subjects. The investigator does not include returning individual research results to subjects as part of the study plan. (Note: this provision does not prevent an investigator from abiding by any legal requirements to return individual research results.)

 

Review of non-exempt research that does not qualify for expedited review or that may present more than minimal risk to the subjects must be reviewed at a convened meeting of the University’s IRB. At the University of Delaware (UD) the IRB meets once every month and investigators proposing new protocols are usually invited to attend the IRB meeting to present their research and address any questions the Board members may have. Students having protocols reviewed at a convened meeting and presenting to the IRB must be accompanied by their faculty advisor.

The meeting dates for the IRB as well as the submission deadline for protocols to be considered for full board review at each month’s meeting are set well in advance and can be found in the Research Office Calendar of Events. The number of protocols to be reviewed at each meeting may be limited due the constraints of time and the complexity of other items on the agenda. Protocols will be accepted for review in the order received. If the board is not able to review a protocol in a particular month, it will be given priority for review in the following month.

Investigators submitting new projects are normally invited to attend the IRB meeting to present their project to the Board and answer any questions or concerns IRB Members may have. The results from the meeting are later communicated to the PI and any conditions the IRB may have set, before approval can be effective, will be addressed then. If a student-led new project is to be reviewed by the full board the academic advisor responsible for the student and project must accompany the student to the meeting.

Projects approved at a convened full board meeting must be periodically reviewed by continuing review before the expiration date set on approval and no less than once a year. Informed consent forms associated with projects reviewed at a full board will be stamped by the IRB with the approval and expiration dates. IRB-stamped documents are posted in IRBNet after approval and must be used when obtaining the informed consent of research participants.

 

In addition to the types of review listed above the IRB may provide administrative reviews when appropriate. Administrative reviews are used in cases in which the University of Delaware needs record of research with human subjects in which UD is engaged but for which review and approval are not issued by the UD IRB. This is the case, for example, when UD investigators are part of a research team performing research at another institution. Depending on the nature of the research and the collaboration arrangement, UD IRB may rely on the review and approval from the other institution’s IRB. UD keeps record of that reliance via an administrative review.

All UD investigators engaged in collaborative research with human subjects must consult with the UD IRB office and submit that proposed effort to the UD IRB regardless of other IRB reviews being sought after.

 

If ANY changes need to be made to an IRB approved protocol, investigators must seek IRB approval of those changes prior to their implementation. Examples of changes that would require the submission of an approval are: changes to the research team members, modifications in the recruitment strategies and/or advertisement materials, any changes to the research instruments already approved, elimination of previously approved procedures and/or data collection measures, new approaches to data processing or storage, edits to the approved informed consent language, etc. Amendments are reviewed as they are submitted and may take on average up to two-weeks to be completed.
Amendment submission packages must contain:

• the amendment form properly filled out,
• the tracked changes and clean versions of any documents affected by the amendment (e.g., edits to the previously approved protocol form and informed consent document, advertisement materials, etc.) Tracked changes version of any edited document must show all the markups including what is being added and/or removed.

If the amendment does affect the informed consent document, a clean version (changes accepted) needs to be submitted so a newly IRB-stamped informed consent can be issued upon approval. The approval of an amendment normally has no effect on the previously set expiration date.

 

Protocols approved by the IRB, whether under expedited or full board review, are required to undergo continuing review at least once per year, on or before the expiration date set at the time of approval for as long as recruitment and data collection is to take place, and/or private identifiable data is kept. In some cases, the IRB may require more frequent continuing reviews. Expiration reminders are automatically sent from IRBNet to the Principal Investigator (PI) and all others with whom the project has been shared, and granted full access to, in IRBNet. Reminders are sent 60 and 30 days before the project is set to expire. In addition, an expiration alert is sent on the expiration day if no approval has been secured before that day. Applications for continuing review must be submitted with enough time to allow for IRB review prior to the expiration date. In order to maintain the expiration anniversary date, continuing review applications are reviewed no earlier than 30 days before the expiration date (because of this, a 30-day expiration notice will always be received even when the application for review has been submitted early). Once a continuing review is approved a new one-year approval period starts and informed consent documents are stamped with the new approval and expiration dates.

Unless eligible for expedited continuing review, protocols originally reviewed and approved by the convened IRB meeting (full board) must undergo a full board continuing review. IRB meeting dates and deadlines must be considered when submitting a continuing application to be reviewed at a full board as to avoid lapses in IRB approval. Continuing review submissions must contain the continuing review form properly filled in and all other current documents relevant to the project (at a minimum the most current previously approved protocol form and a clean version of the informed consent). If any changes are added at the time of continuing review, the tracked changes version of the protocol form and informed consent document(s) need to be added to the continuing review application.

Lapses in IRB Approval: It is the responsibility of the investigators to provide in a timely manner the information needed by the IRB to perform its continuing review functions. When continuing review of a research project is not completed prior to the end of the approval period specified, the IRB approval will expire. All research activities involving human subjects (i.e., participant recruitment and/or data collection) must stop after IRB approval expires and cannot be restarted until approval has been secured. Expired projects for which the IRB office has not been notified of the intent for continuation will be closed. Once closed, a project cannot be re-opened and will have to be resubmitted as ‘new’ for review and approval before any research related activities can be re-initiated.

 

Investigators must report to the IRB Office any instances of unanticipated problems (UP), and/or adverse events (AE) related to the research within three days of the incident.

Unanticipated problems, in general, include any incident, experience or outcome that meets the following criteria:

1. unexpected (in terms of nature, severity or frequency) given (a) the research procedures that are described in the protocol-related documents, such as the IRB-approved research protocol and informed consent document; and (b) the characteristics of the subject population being studied;
2. related or possibly related to participation in the research (in this guidance document, possibly related means there is a reasonable possibility that the incident, experience or outcome may have been caused by the procedures involved in the research);
3. suggests that the research places subjects or others at a greater risk of harm (including physical, psychological, economic or social harm) than was previously known or recognized.

Adverse Events

An adverse event is any untoward or unfavorable medical occurrence in a human subject, including any abnormal sign (e.g., abnormal physical exam or laboratory finding), symptom or disease, temporally associated with the subject’s participation in the research, whether or not considered related to the subject’s participation in the research. Adverse events encompass both physical and psychological harms. They occur most commonly in the context of biomedical research, although on occasion, they can occur in the context of social and behavioral research.

Unanticipated problems and adverse events must be reported to the IRB by submitting the appropriate form via IRBNet. Depending on the nature and of the event reported and on a case by case basis the Director of Research Compliance and the IRB Chair will decide if review by the convened IRB of the submission is needed and when a for cause audit of the research project may be required.

 

Auditing will be performed routinely by the IRB office staff to ascertain general compliance with the protection of human subjects requirements and IRB-approved protocol and procedures. In addition, for cause audits will be conducted as deemed appropriate by the Director of Research Compliance, and/or the IRB Chair, to investigate reports of unanticipated problems, adverse events and/or non-compliance.

• Routine Audits: Projects are selected randomly among those active and approved via expedited and convened IRB review. The principal investigator responsible for the project is contacted to schedule a visit from the IRB office staff member conducting the audit. Prior to the scheduled visit the investigator is sent an outline of the review process. A report is generated after the audit and sent to the investigator for review. Non-compliance and other findings resulting from a routine audit are shared with the IRB. If a non-compliance finding is determined by the IRB to be serious or continuing it will be further investigated and reported to the UD Signatory Official.
• For cause Audit: Adverse events and/or unanticipated problems involving risk to participants reported to the IRB office may be followed up with an investigation. For cause audits may also be performed to investigate non-compliance with IRB-approved protocols. Depending on the nature of the investigation, for cause audits may be scheduled or unannounced. Reports from a for cause audit will be reviewed by the IRB. Depending on the outcome of a for cause audit and the IRB review of the report, an incident may have to be reported to the UD Signatory Official. The UD Signatory Official has the authority to decide if, as per the stipulated guidance, further reporting to OHRP and the funding agency is needed.

 

Protocols approved by the IRB under an expedited or full board review must receive continuing review at least once per year until closed. A project can be closed when all the following conditions are true:

• Enrollment and all data collection for the study have been completed; private identifiable data is no longer being stored, accessed or worked on
• the link (access code), if any, between the research data and the identifiers has been destroyed. More details on data storage and retention can be found in the data management section below.

A closure submission should be done as soon as the conditions above are met by creating a new submission package in IRBNet and including the closure form. If no continuing review application nor closure request is submitted by the investigator, projects will be closed by the IRB Office upon expiration. Once a study has been closed it cannot be re-opened. Any future work related to the study (e.g., long- term follow up with participants, additional enrollment and data collection, etc.) will require for a new project to be reviewed and approved by the IRB before the work can start.

 

A human subjects research project is considered “active” from the time IRB approval is issued until the time personal identifiers linked to the research data no longer exist and the project is closed. Records for active IRB approved research projects must be stored in some form (paper and/or digital form) in secure locations on campus. For research performed off-campus, the data should be secured and returned to campus as soon after collection as it is practicable. Particular care should be taken to protect data on laptop computers, external hard drives and other portable devices. Study information containing personal identifiers stored on these devices should be encrypted (see link for UD’s guidelines on encryption) to prevent unintentional breaches of confidentiality in the event the storage device is lost or stolen. Similarly, paper records identifying research participants, including consent forms, should be kept in a secure location with access restricted to key study personnel. The level of protection for the data should be commensurate with the sensitivity of the data. Basic levels of storage are as follows:

Paper Records (e.g., consent forms, data files, medical records, etc.): Paper files related to human subjects participation in research must be securely stored on campus. Access to files should be restricted to key personnel and supervised by the principal investigator(s) of the study. Locked file cabinets ought to be used and preferably located in secured locations (i.e., locked office or laboratory). In the event that research activities are not carried on campus AND it is necessary to maintain the consent forms at the research site, copies of the signed consent forms should also be stored on a secure University location (either as a paper copy or in digital form).

Digital Records (e.g., electronic files, digital recordings, etc.): Digital files containing human subjects research data must be stored in password protected files, preferably on University maintained servers with regular and secured back-up. Sensitive data should also be encrypted, stored, and securely erased when appropriate, according to the UD guidelines for protecting Personally Indentifiable Information (PII).

IRB approval for expedited and full board-reviewed protocols must be renewed annually on or before the approval expiration date. Continuing review must be obtained for as long as recruitment and/or data collection activities are ongoing, and/or private identifiable data are stored (that is, the identifying link between the data files and the participants’ identity still exists and is accessible to the researcher(s)):

IRBNet will send automatic reminders 60 days and 30 days before the expiration date, and an expiration alert the day an approval is set to expire. Please plan to submit your continuing renewal application with enough time to allow for its review and approval. No recruitment, data collection or private identifiable data analysis activities shall be carried on under an expired protocol.

If no continuing review application is submitted for review, projects will be closed after expiration. Further data collection and/or identifiable data analysis will require a new submission for IRB review and approval.

 

Approved human subject research projects should be closed at the time all data have been collected and identifying information is no longer needed. De-identified data for which no identifying key exists can be kept for further analysis and do not require continuing review and approval by an IRB.

Compliance with 45 CFR 46.115(b) requires that all records relating to IRB approved research be retained for three years after closure of the project.

Records to be maintained include: copies of all research proposals reviewed, scientific evaluations (if any), consent documents, progress reports, reports of injuries to subjects and other unanticipated problems, and copies of all correspondences between the IRB and the investigator(s). Records may be preserved in hard-copy, electronic or other media form, and must be accessible for audit purposes. Records for completed projects should be stored in secure locations on campus with the same care used when the project was active.

If a researcher (faculty, staff or student) leaves UD, a copy of the research records must remain on campus. Students should coordinate storage of research records with their faculty advisor(s) and/or departments.

 

Destruction of human subjects research records should be performed in a fashion that protects the confidentiality of the research subjects. It is recommended that paper records be shredded, that physical tapes (audio and video) be erased and physically destroyed, and that electronic media used to store data be scrubbed after the files are deleted.

Researchers may retain de-identified data for future analysis in the context of the project for which the data were collected. Data are considered to be completely de-identified when ALL links between individual identity and the data are destroyed. Research data are not considered de-identified simply because names have been removed if they still contain information that might identify the participants such as date of birth, address, etc.

 

For further guidance, please contact the IRB Office at 302-831-2137. 

1. The FDA Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA) requires “Applicable Clinical Trials” involving drugs, biological products and devices subject to the FDA regulations to be registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, regardless of the funding source for the study.
2. The NIH Policy on the Dissemination of NIH-Funded Clinical Trial Information (“NIH Policy”) is complementary to the reporting requirements of FDAAA and establishes the expectation that all investigators conducting clinical trials funded, in whole or in part, by the NIH will ensure that these trials are registered and that results submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov.
3. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (“ICMJE”) policy (adopted by over 1,000 journals) requires, and recommends that all medical journal editors require, registration of clinical trials in a public trials registry at or before the time of first patient enrollment as a condition of consideration for publication.
4. In addition, an investigator may voluntarily decide to register a study not subject to any of the requirements above (e.g., an observational study with no intervention assignment and not intended to be published in a ICMJE journal) as a way to publicly advertise the research (i.e., recruitment of research subjects). ClinicalTrials.gov supports and encourages the registration of all research studies with human subjects, even if an explicit requirement does not apply.

---

For questions, send email to: clinicaltrials@udel.edu.

 

I am the PI of a clinical trial. What do I do?

Once determined that a clinical trial will need to be registered in www.ClinicalTrials.gov the steps to follow are:

 

1. If it is my first time registering a study: How do I obtain an account with ClinicalTrials.gov?Obtaining a username and password: If you do not have an account with ClinicalTrials.gov (i.e., no username and password), proceed to https://clinicaltrials.gov/:
   1. Click “Submit Studies” and then click “How to apply for an account.”
   2. Toward the bottom of the page, click the link, “PRS Administrator Contact Request Form.” Complete the contact request form for the appropriate organization (University of Delaware).
   3. You will receive an email from clinicaltrials.gov with the email address for the University of Delaware Protocol Registration System (PRS) Administrator account, clinicaltrials@udel.edu. Email the UD PRS Administrator account and request a username and password.
      
      University of Delaware has a PRS Administrator account – do not create PRS “individual account” when registering with ClinicalTrials.gov.
   4. If you do not know if you have an account or have forgotten your username, use the steps above to verify your username.
2. How Do I Register a Trial?
   1. Prior to registration in ClinicalTrials.gov a UD research study must have received UD IRB approval. Pursuant to FDA Guidance, and NIH Policy, the following exact statement must be included in the informed consent documents of studies to be registered in ClinicalTrials.gov:
      
      “A description of this clinical trial will be available on http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov, as required by U.S. Law. This Web site will not include information that can identify you. At most, the Web site will include a summary of the results. You can search this Web site at any time”
   2. Once a username and password has been obtained, proceed to the ClinicalTrials.gov “PRS Login Page,” and enter the organization (UDelaware), username and password.
      
      For basic help with using PRS, review the “Quick Start Guide” and the “PRS User’s Guide” found in the “Help” section of the PRS top main menu, which is accessible after logging with your username and password.
   3. Complete all fields with information related to the trial. Once all of the information has been entered in the PRS record, marked as complete and released, an automated email will be sent to the UD PRS Administrator. Upon completion of the administrative review, which typically takes 3-5 business days, a UD PRS Administrator will approve and release the record to ClinicalTrials.gov, where the PRS team will review the record for quality control purposes prior to posting on the ClinicalTrials.gov website.

 

How do I Submit Trial Results?

1. Enter organization (UDelaware), your username, and your password on the “PRS Login Page.”
2. Update the “Protocol Section” and release (submit) the record.

    

   a. Ensure that the information in the Protocol Section is up-to-date before starting the Results Section (e.g., overall recruitment status, study start date, primary and study completion dates, actual enrollment, and arm and intervention information.)b. Begin results submission after the updated record has been published on ClinicalTrials.gov.

3. Enter the required and optional results data elements. Scientific information is submitted as four separate modules: the modules allow for the entry and display of information in a series of data tables with supporting notes, but without narrative conclusions about the results. The scientific information instructions section provides detailed information on how to prepare the submission of each module and it includes links to instructional online presentations:

    

   Participant Flow	Summary of the progress of participants through each stage of a study, by study arm or comparison group. It includes the numbers of participants who started, completed and dropped out of each period of the study based on the sequence in which interventions were assigned. The module accommodates a wide range of study designs and allows for the description of key events following study enrollment but prior to group assignment.
   Baseline Characteristics	Summary of the data collected at the beginning of the study for all participants, by study arm or comparison group. These data include demographics, such as age and gender, and study-specific measures (e.g., systolic blood pressure prior to exercise treatment).
   Outcome Measures and Statistical Analyses	Summary of outcome measure values, by study arm or comparison group. It includes tables for each prespecified Primary Outcome and Secondary Outcome and may also include other prespecified outcomes, post hoc outcomes and appropriate statistical analyses.
   Adverse Events	Summary of all anticipated and unanticipated serious adverse events and a tabular summary of anticipated and unanticipated other adverse events exceeding a specific frequency threshold.

4. Preview, inspect and release (submit) the record. For a description of criteria that should be addressed before releasing (submitting) the record, see “ClinicalTrials.gov Results Review Criteria.”
5. When the record is released, an automated email will be sent to the UD PRS Administrator. Upon completion of the administrative review, which typically takes 3-5 business days, the UD PRS Administrator will approve and release the record to ClinicalTrials.gov, where a ClinicalTrials.gov staff member will review the record for quality control purposes prior to posting the results on the ClinicalTrials.gov website.
6. Resources for the submission of results:

    

   a. “Basic Results Data Element Definitions” contains descriptions of each required data item. b. Results data preparation checklists, simple results templates for each module, required data and a view of data elements in a tabular form are listed in the “Scientific Information” section of the “How to Submit Your Results” guidance on ClinicalTrials.gov. c. “Helpful Hints” contains tips on entering results data, including three examples of common study models (parallel design, crossover design and diagnostic accuracy studies) and measure types.

 

---

For questions, send email to the University of Delaware Research Office.

 

Additional Information

• There is a link at the bottom of each page on clinicaltrials.gov to submit a ticket for help: “CONTACT NLM HELP DESK.”
• ClinicalTrials.gov may be contacted with questions or for guidance via email at register@clinicaltrials.gov.
  1. If the question is about a specific study record, please provide the NCT Number or the Unique Protocol ID (if an NCT Number has not yet been assigned).
  2. Be detailed in your request. ClinicalTrials.gov generally responds to all emails within one business day.

 

Please see ClinicalTrials.Gov Guidance & Procedures here.

---

For questions, send email to: clinicaltrials@udel.edu.