Development and Application of Scorecards to Assess the Quality of a Regulatory Submission and Its Review

S. Salek, A. Mallia-Milanes, N. McAuslane, S. Walker
{"title":"Development and Application of Scorecards to Assess the Quality of a Regulatory Submission and Its Review","authors":"S. Salek, A. Mallia-Milanes, N. McAuslane, S. Walker","doi":"10.1177/0092861511427694","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"An efficient review depends not only on timely approval but also on ensuring the qualityof the processfrom construction of the dossier to the ultimate regulatory decision. Two scorecards were developed through a process of conceptualization, item generation, and reduction, as well as psychometric testing, for regulatory authorities to provide feedback to companies on the quality of their submissions while companies report to authorities on the quality of their review. The scorecards included more than 50 items grouped into 7 domains, including application format, content of the dossier, labeling, scientific advice, conduct of the review, communication, and overall assessment. The scorecards were then tested by 3 major regulatory authorities (Health Canada, Swissmedic, and Therapeutic Goods Administration, Australia) and 4 international pharmaceutical companies (AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novo Nordisk, andPfizer). The study participants responded openly to requests for ratings on the quality of performance bythe other parties based on retrospective reviews. The data gave insights into different perceptions of quality in relation to submitted data and their respective review procedures. The findings showed the value and applicability of the proposed scorecards.","PeriodicalId":391574,"journal":{"name":"Drug information journal : DIJ / Drug Information Association","volume":"50 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Drug information journal : DIJ / Drug Information Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0092861511427694","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

An efficient review depends not only on timely approval but also on ensuring the qualityof the processfrom construction of the dossier to the ultimate regulatory decision. Two scorecards were developed through a process of conceptualization, item generation, and reduction, as well as psychometric testing, for regulatory authorities to provide feedback to companies on the quality of their submissions while companies report to authorities on the quality of their review. The scorecards included more than 50 items grouped into 7 domains, including application format, content of the dossier, labeling, scientific advice, conduct of the review, communication, and overall assessment. The scorecards were then tested by 3 major regulatory authorities (Health Canada, Swissmedic, and Therapeutic Goods Administration, Australia) and 4 international pharmaceutical companies (AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novo Nordisk, andPfizer). The study participants responded openly to requests for ratings on the quality of performance bythe other parties based on retrospective reviews. The data gave insights into different perceptions of quality in relation to submitted data and their respective review procedures. The findings showed the value and applicability of the proposed scorecards.
开发和应用记分卡来评估监管提交及其审查的质量
有效的审查不仅取决于及时的批准,还取决于确保从档案构建到最终监管决定的过程的质量。通过概念化、项目生成和减少以及心理测量测试的过程,开发了两种记分卡,供监管机构向公司提供关于其提交的质量的反馈,同时公司向当局报告其审查的质量。记分卡包括50多个项目,分为7个领域,包括申请格式、档案内容、标签、科学建议、审查行为、沟通和总体评估。然后由3个主要监管机构(加拿大卫生部、瑞士卫生部和澳大利亚药品管理局)和4家国际制药公司(阿斯利康、葛兰素史克、诺和诺德和辉瑞)对记分卡进行测试。研究参与者在回顾的基础上公开回应了对方对表现质量的评价。这些数据提供了对所提交数据及其各自审查程序的质量的不同看法的见解。研究结果显示了所提出的计分卡的价值和适用性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信