<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
	<id>https://wiki.go-eqipd.org/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=B.gerlach</id>
	<title>EQIPD - User contributions [en]</title>
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://wiki.go-eqipd.org/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=B.gerlach"/>
	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.go-eqipd.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/B.gerlach"/>
	<updated>2026-06-28T20:28:36Z</updated>
	<subtitle>User contributions</subtitle>
	<generator>MediaWiki 1.31.0</generator>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.go-eqipd.org/index.php?title=1.5.2.3_Process_owner&amp;diff=566</id>
		<title>1.5.2.3 Process owner</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.go-eqipd.org/index.php?title=1.5.2.3_Process_owner&amp;diff=566"/>
		<updated>2020-09-29T14:01:49Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;B.gerlach: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== ​​​​​​​​A. Background &amp;amp; Definitions ==&lt;br /&gt;
Process owner is a person within the organization (research unit) who has the necessary resources or access to them, the competence and the authority to implement the steps needed to establish the EQIPD Quality System (QS).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Every process needs a leader who has a vision (or shares the EQIPD vision), takes responsibility of the QS and its implementation and is willing to drive the process forward.​​&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This Toolbox item refers to one of the [[Core Requirements]]  (Core Requirement 1 - &amp;quot;Process owner must be identified for the Quality S​ystem&amp;quot;) and describes the very first step that any research unit has to make when implementing the EQIPD QS ([[Implementation Strategy]]​).​&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== ​B. Guidance &amp;amp; Expectations ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Process Owner is typically expected to:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Drive the implementation of the QS forward by setting up a team that will be involved in the implementation and providing all necessary resources&lt;br /&gt;
* If the research unit decides to use the Planning Tool for the QS implementation, keep the Planning Tool up to date and for providing other team members access to this tool&lt;br /&gt;
* Keep a track of the status of all needs that are relevant for the research unit and for the implementation of the QS;&lt;br /&gt;
* Once the system is implemented, estimate and provide the resources necessary for maintaining the QS​&lt;br /&gt;
* Have the authority to delegate and to assign responsibilities in relation to planning tool tasks;&lt;br /&gt;
* Communicate regularly to colleagues, stakeholders and management about the progress of implementation​ and use of the QS, including any issues that may arise (if applicable)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is typically expected that the Process Owner is someone who directs the work of the research unit (e.g. a professor, group leader, principal investigator, CEO or department head) and is competent about the role and importance of quality in research.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For large research units (companies, institutes), Process Owners, while maintaining the overall responsibility and decision-making authority, may delegate the task of running the EQIPD QS implementation to their associates (e.g. lab managers).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----------------&lt;br /&gt;
back to [[Toolbox]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Next item: [[1.5.2.4 Principal investigators and study directors]]​&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
​&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>B.gerlach</name></author>
		
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.go-eqipd.org/index.php?title=4.1.1_Risk_assessment&amp;diff=481</id>
		<title>4.1.1 Risk assessment</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.go-eqipd.org/index.php?title=4.1.1_Risk_assessment&amp;diff=481"/>
		<updated>2020-09-05T20:01:09Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;B.gerlach: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​A. Background &amp;amp; Definitions​ ==&lt;br /&gt;
This item refers to one of the [[Core Requirements]]  (Core Requirement 15 - &amp;quot;Risk assessment must be performed to identify factors affecting the generation, processing and reporting of reserach data&amp;quot;) and is, therefore, considered as essential.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Risk is the combination of the probability of occurrence of harm, and the severity of that harm.  In the context of EQIPD Quality System, harm is defined as research data not being fit for purpose, research data being biased and/or inadequate data integrity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Risk assessment is the process of identifying all risks to and from an activity or situation and assessing the potential impact on the research enviroment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For any research unit using EQIPD Quality System, there are three main areas of risk assessment:&lt;br /&gt;
* alterations from strongly recommended practices (i.e. situations when EQIPD language included „should“ and the research unit provided a declaration on why it does not or cannot apply to them)&lt;br /&gt;
* key / support processes that are inherently associated with risks endangering the validity of results ​(e.g. risk of unblinding; emergency access to blinding codes; see also [[Plausibility check]])&lt;br /&gt;
* changes in the environment of the research unit (new hires / key people leaving; facility changes, etc.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== B. Guidance &amp;amp; Expectations ==&lt;br /&gt;
EQIPD expects risk assessment to be conducted at three levels:&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! scope=&amp;quot;col&amp;quot;| &lt;br /&gt;
! scope=&amp;quot;col&amp;quot;|&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;By whom&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
! scope=&amp;quot;col&amp;quot;|&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;When / how often​&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
! scope=&amp;quot;col&amp;quot;|​&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;To be documented?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
! scope=&amp;quot;col&amp;quot;|​&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Use of EQIPD tools&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
! scope=&amp;quot;col&amp;quot;|&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Alterations from strongly recommended practices&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|Process Owner&lt;br /&gt;
|At least as part of [[4.1.2 Self assessment]]​&lt;br /&gt;
(Process Owner may decide to conduct assessments more frequently)&lt;br /&gt;
|Yes, a​s part of a [[4.1.2 Self assessment]]​ protocol&lt;br /&gt;
|​If EQIPD Planning Tool is used, alterations from the recommended practices can be marked or highlighted in the corresponding Risk Assessment column in the Action Plan.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
! scope=&amp;quot;col&amp;quot;|&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Inherent risks of key / support processes&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|Team member with the primary responsibility over design and execution of a particular study&lt;br /&gt;
|For each planned / conducted study​&lt;br /&gt;
|Yes, as part of a [[2.1.1 Study (experimental) plan]] that should have a dedicated section or box for risk assessment summary​&lt;br /&gt;
|Certain Toolbox items are marked with a warning sign and a &amp;quot;please do not forget&amp;quot; text in order to suggest processes that may require attention&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
! scope=&amp;quot;col&amp;quot;|&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Changes in the environment&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|Process Owner (alone or with the team)&lt;br /&gt;
|​Ad hoc&lt;br /&gt;
|Optional (to be decided by the Process Owner - see below for a template, can be easily done with Planning Tool current version[https://paasp.sharepoint.com/:u:/s/EQIPD/Eaq198yQK_xAvr24inTL1PoBDL6N7qanY62awbTLTHNN-Q?e=5DyhXi])&lt;br /&gt;
|​Corresponding Toolbox items may be consulted for any specific guidance or references to useful resources; ​If EQIPD Planning Tool is used, new solutions and changes to existing solutions can be recorded&lt;br /&gt;
|} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Optionally, risk assessment can be conducted more often by the process owner or a dedicated personon on a broader level than what is suggested above.  When doing so, the following questions can be used for guidance: &lt;br /&gt;
* What can go wrong and have a negative impact on the research data or unit? &lt;br /&gt;
* How likely is it to happen? &lt;br /&gt;
* What are the potential consequences? &lt;br /&gt;
* How tolerable is the identified risk​?​&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Outcome of such risk assessment can be documented (e.g. using the template provided below) and and store in Dossier folder 4.1.1. A case study can be found [[Risk Management Case Studies]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;DO NOT FORGET&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* ​To justify acceptance of risk based on both probability and severity of harm&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== C. Resources ==&lt;br /&gt;
SYRCLE Risk of Bias [https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2288-14-43]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following techniques provide a more detailed framework and can be used if resources allow it:&lt;br /&gt;
* ​SWOT analysis [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWOT_analysis]&lt;br /&gt;
* FMEA​ [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failure_mode_and_effects_analysis]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ICH Q9 Quality Management &lt;br /&gt;
* ​FDA [https://www.fda.gov/media/71543/download]&lt;br /&gt;
* EMA [https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/ich-q9-quality-risk-management]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Template for optional risk assessment - [https://paasp.sharepoint.com/:w:/s/EQIPD/EfSJLIZdbOFOlKneuiRrf5MBeTug7VsZoWHsETvI3pY_mg?e=GXBsdk 4.1.1 Risk Management.docx​]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
back to [[Toolbox]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Next item: [[4.1.2 Self assessment]]​&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>B.gerlach</name></author>
		
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.go-eqipd.org/index.php?title=4.1.1_Risk_assessment&amp;diff=480</id>
		<title>4.1.1 Risk assessment</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.go-eqipd.org/index.php?title=4.1.1_Risk_assessment&amp;diff=480"/>
		<updated>2020-09-05T20:00:49Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;B.gerlach: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​A. Background &amp;amp; Definitions​ ==&lt;br /&gt;
This item refers to one of the [[Core Requirements]]  (Core Requirement 15 - &amp;quot;Risk assessment must be performed to identify factors affecting the generation, processing and reporting of reserach data&amp;quot;) and is, therefore, considered as essential.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Risk is the combination of the probability of occurrence of harm, and the severity of that harm.  In the context of EQIPD Quality System, harm is defined as research data not being fit for purpose, research data being biased and/or inadequate data integrity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Risk assessment is the process of identifying all risks to and from an activity or situation and assessing the potential impact on the research enviroment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For any research unit using EQIPD Quality System, there are three main areas of risk assessment:&lt;br /&gt;
* alterations from strongly recommended practices (i.e. situations when EQIPD language included „should“ and the research unit provided a declaration on why it does not or cannot apply to them)&lt;br /&gt;
* key / support processes that are inherently associated with risks endangering the validity of results ​(e.g. risk of unblinding; emergency access to blinding codes; see also [[Plausibility check]])&lt;br /&gt;
* changes in the environment of the research unit (new hires / key people leaving; facility changes, etc.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== B. Guidance &amp;amp; Expectations ==&lt;br /&gt;
EQIPD expects risk assessment to be conducted at three levels:&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! scope=&amp;quot;col&amp;quot;| &lt;br /&gt;
! scope=&amp;quot;col&amp;quot;|&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;By whom&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
! scope=&amp;quot;col&amp;quot;|&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;When / how often​&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
! scope=&amp;quot;col&amp;quot;|​&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;To be documented?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
! scope=&amp;quot;col&amp;quot;|​&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Use of EQIPD tools&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Alterations from strongly recommended practices&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|Process Owner&lt;br /&gt;
|At least as part of [[4.1.2 Self assessment]]​&lt;br /&gt;
(Process Owner may decide to conduct assessments more frequently)&lt;br /&gt;
|Yes, a​s part of a [[4.1.2 Self assessment]]​ protocol&lt;br /&gt;
|​If EQIPD Planning Tool is used, alterations from the recommended practices can be marked or highlighted in the corresponding Risk Assessment column in the Action Plan.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Inherent risks of key / support processes&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|Team member with the primary responsibility over design and execution of a particular study&lt;br /&gt;
|For each planned / conducted study​&lt;br /&gt;
|Yes, as part of a [[2.1.1 Study (experimental) plan]] that should have a dedicated section or box for risk assessment summary​&lt;br /&gt;
|Certain Toolbox items are marked with a warning sign and a &amp;quot;please do not forget&amp;quot; text in order to suggest processes that may require attention&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Changes in the environment&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|Process Owner (alone or with the team)&lt;br /&gt;
|​Ad hoc&lt;br /&gt;
|Optional (to be decided by the Process Owner - see below for a template, can be easily done with Planning Tool current version[https://paasp.sharepoint.com/:u:/s/EQIPD/Eaq198yQK_xAvr24inTL1PoBDL6N7qanY62awbTLTHNN-Q?e=5DyhXi])&lt;br /&gt;
|​Corresponding Toolbox items may be consulted for any specific guidance or references to useful resources; ​If EQIPD Planning Tool is used, new solutions and changes to existing solutions can be recorded&lt;br /&gt;
|} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Optionally, risk assessment can be conducted more often by the process owner or a dedicated personon on a broader level than what is suggested above.  When doing so, the following questions can be used for guidance: &lt;br /&gt;
* What can go wrong and have a negative impact on the research data or unit? &lt;br /&gt;
* How likely is it to happen? &lt;br /&gt;
* What are the potential consequences? &lt;br /&gt;
* How tolerable is the identified risk​?​&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Outcome of such risk assessment can be documented (e.g. using the template provided below) and and store in Dossier folder 4.1.1. A case study can be found [[Risk Management Case Studies]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;DO NOT FORGET&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* ​To justify acceptance of risk based on both probability and severity of harm&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== C. Resources ==&lt;br /&gt;
SYRCLE Risk of Bias [https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2288-14-43]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following techniques provide a more detailed framework and can be used if resources allow it:&lt;br /&gt;
* ​SWOT analysis [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWOT_analysis]&lt;br /&gt;
* FMEA​ [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failure_mode_and_effects_analysis]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ICH Q9 Quality Management &lt;br /&gt;
* ​FDA [https://www.fda.gov/media/71543/download]&lt;br /&gt;
* EMA [https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/ich-q9-quality-risk-management]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Template for optional risk assessment - [https://paasp.sharepoint.com/:w:/s/EQIPD/EfSJLIZdbOFOlKneuiRrf5MBeTug7VsZoWHsETvI3pY_mg?e=GXBsdk 4.1.1 Risk Management.docx​]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
back to [[Toolbox]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Next item: [[4.1.2 Self assessment]]​&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>B.gerlach</name></author>
		
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.go-eqipd.org/index.php?title=4.1.1_Risk_assessment&amp;diff=479</id>
		<title>4.1.1 Risk assessment</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.go-eqipd.org/index.php?title=4.1.1_Risk_assessment&amp;diff=479"/>
		<updated>2020-09-05T20:00:34Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;B.gerlach: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​A. Background &amp;amp; Definitions​ ==&lt;br /&gt;
This item refers to one of the [[Core Requirements]]  (Core Requirement 15 - &amp;quot;Risk assessment must be performed to identify factors affecting the generation, processing and reporting of reserach data&amp;quot;) and is, therefore, considered as essential.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Risk is the combination of the probability of occurrence of harm, and the severity of that harm.  In the context of EQIPD Quality System, harm is defined as research data not being fit for purpose, research data being biased and/or inadequate data integrity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Risk assessment is the process of identifying all risks to and from an activity or situation and assessing the potential impact on the research enviroment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For any research unit using EQIPD Quality System, there are three main areas of risk assessment:&lt;br /&gt;
* alterations from strongly recommended practices (i.e. situations when EQIPD language included „should“ and the research unit provided a declaration on why it does not or cannot apply to them)&lt;br /&gt;
* key / support processes that are inherently associated with risks endangering the validity of results ​(e.g. risk of unblinding; emergency access to blinding codes; see also [[Plausibility check]])&lt;br /&gt;
* changes in the environment of the research unit (new hires / key people leaving; facility changes, etc.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== B. Guidance &amp;amp; Expectations ==&lt;br /&gt;
EQIPD expects risk assessment to be conducted at three levels:&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
! scope=&amp;quot;col&amp;quot;|&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;By whom&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
! scope=&amp;quot;col&amp;quot;|&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;When / how often​&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
! scope=&amp;quot;col&amp;quot;|​&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;To be documented?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
! scope=&amp;quot;col&amp;quot;|​&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Use of EQIPD tools&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Alterations from strongly recommended practices&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|Process Owner&lt;br /&gt;
|At least as part of [[4.1.2 Self assessment]]​&lt;br /&gt;
(Process Owner may decide to conduct assessments more frequently)&lt;br /&gt;
|Yes, a​s part of a [[4.1.2 Self assessment]]​ protocol&lt;br /&gt;
|​If EQIPD Planning Tool is used, alterations from the recommended practices can be marked or highlighted in the corresponding Risk Assessment column in the Action Plan.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Inherent risks of key / support processes&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|Team member with the primary responsibility over design and execution of a particular study&lt;br /&gt;
|For each planned / conducted study​&lt;br /&gt;
|Yes, as part of a [[2.1.1 Study (experimental) plan]] that should have a dedicated section or box for risk assessment summary​&lt;br /&gt;
|Certain Toolbox items are marked with a warning sign and a &amp;quot;please do not forget&amp;quot; text in order to suggest processes that may require attention&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Changes in the environment&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|Process Owner (alone or with the team)&lt;br /&gt;
|​Ad hoc&lt;br /&gt;
|Optional (to be decided by the Process Owner - see below for a template, can be easily done with Planning Tool current version[https://paasp.sharepoint.com/:u:/s/EQIPD/Eaq198yQK_xAvr24inTL1PoBDL6N7qanY62awbTLTHNN-Q?e=5DyhXi])&lt;br /&gt;
|​Corresponding Toolbox items may be consulted for any specific guidance or references to useful resources; ​If EQIPD Planning Tool is used, new solutions and changes to existing solutions can be recorded&lt;br /&gt;
|} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Optionally, risk assessment can be conducted more often by the process owner or a dedicated personon on a broader level than what is suggested above.  When doing so, the following questions can be used for guidance: &lt;br /&gt;
* What can go wrong and have a negative impact on the research data or unit? &lt;br /&gt;
* How likely is it to happen? &lt;br /&gt;
* What are the potential consequences? &lt;br /&gt;
* How tolerable is the identified risk​?​&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Outcome of such risk assessment can be documented (e.g. using the template provided below) and and store in Dossier folder 4.1.1. A case study can be found [[Risk Management Case Studies]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;DO NOT FORGET&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* ​To justify acceptance of risk based on both probability and severity of harm&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== C. Resources ==&lt;br /&gt;
SYRCLE Risk of Bias [https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2288-14-43]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following techniques provide a more detailed framework and can be used if resources allow it:&lt;br /&gt;
* ​SWOT analysis [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWOT_analysis]&lt;br /&gt;
* FMEA​ [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failure_mode_and_effects_analysis]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ICH Q9 Quality Management &lt;br /&gt;
* ​FDA [https://www.fda.gov/media/71543/download]&lt;br /&gt;
* EMA [https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/ich-q9-quality-risk-management]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Template for optional risk assessment - [https://paasp.sharepoint.com/:w:/s/EQIPD/EfSJLIZdbOFOlKneuiRrf5MBeTug7VsZoWHsETvI3pY_mg?e=GXBsdk 4.1.1 Risk Management.docx​]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
back to [[Toolbox]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Next item: [[4.1.2 Self assessment]]​&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>B.gerlach</name></author>
		
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.go-eqipd.org/index.php?title=Glossary&amp;diff=478</id>
		<title>Glossary</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.go-eqipd.org/index.php?title=Glossary&amp;diff=478"/>
		<updated>2020-09-05T19:59:08Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;B.gerlach: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;margin: auto;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! scope=&amp;quot;col&amp;quot;|&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Te​​​rm&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
! scope=&amp;quot;col&amp;quot;|&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Definition&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Dashboard&lt;br /&gt;
|A Planning Tool page that provides an overview of Challenges, Solutions and associated activities and risks for a research unit​.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Challenge&lt;br /&gt;
|An unmet requirement that must be appropriately matched by a specific solution.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Continuous improvement&lt;br /&gt;
|The process ensuring that new​ risks and challenges are identified and appropriately met by adapting the existing quality system (e.g., updating the EQIPD Dossier).&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Core requirements	&lt;br /&gt;
|Tasks defined by EQIPD for all users/institutions that must be fulfilled to reach the status of a functional quality system.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Dossier (EQIPD Dossier)	&lt;br /&gt;
|A structured and categorized collection of various quality-related items (such as protocols for experimental methods and training records) that are developed and stored by a research unit as solutions to challenges specific to their needs.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Framework (EQIPD Framework)&lt;br /&gt;
|The concept, implementation strategy, software and tools developed by EQIPD that direct and support the users in building the fit-for-purpose EQIPD Quality System.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Key process&lt;br /&gt;
|An action or series of actions that directly impact the experimental generation of research products, data and their quality.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Knowledge claim&lt;br /&gt;
|A formal knowledge claim can be thought of as a statement that a research project or study has established new knowledge, or consolidated existing knowledge, with sufficient certainty that that knowledge can now be acted upon. The required level of certainty might depend on the nature (risk and potential benefits) of the possible action. For instance, the required level of confidence in the efficacy of a molecule will be different for a decision to proceed to a clinical trial compared to deciding to publish the results of a study or to initiate a lead identification campaign for a newly validated target.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Needs&lt;br /&gt;
|Reasons to introduce and maintain high quality derived from a research unit&amp;#039;s mission and research objectives that can be dictated by stakeholders (e.g., funders) or defined by EQIPD.  They are identified by the research unit and presented in the Planning tool.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Must&lt;br /&gt;
|Indicates actions that EQIPD considers as imperative and mandatory or as a requirement.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Phase 1 of EQIPD QS implementation	&lt;br /&gt;
|Completion of the initial set of core requirements that constitutes the basis to build the EQIPD Quality System and enables the next steps.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Phase 2 of EQIPD QS implementation	&lt;br /&gt;
|Development and implementation of solutions to address Core Requirements and challenges associated with the user&amp;#039;s needs.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Phase 3 of EQIPD QS implementation	&lt;br /&gt;
|Development and implementation of solutions to address Core Requirements defined by EQIPD that were not addressed or completed during Phase 2 and that are necessary to complete the fully functional EQIPD Quality System.​&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Performance standards&lt;br /&gt;
|Performance standards define the desired outcome in detail and provide measurable criteria for assessing whether the outcome is achieved, but do not specify in detail a method or technique for achieving the desired outcome​.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Planning tool (EQIPD Planning tool)	&lt;br /&gt;
|A software tool supporting the research unit in order to implement the EQIPD Quality System in a given institution.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Process owner	&lt;br /&gt;
|A person ​within the organization / research unit who has the necessary resources or access to them, the competence and the authority to implement the steps needed to establish the EQIPD Quality System.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|​Regulated research, &lt;br /&gt;
or research subject to regulation&lt;br /&gt;
|Research activities for which national (e.g. FDA) or international (e.g. EMA, OECD) governmental bodies and agencies have specific responsibility for regulating the research activity as well as setting expectations and inspections. &lt;br /&gt;
Regulated research is typically subject to compliance with the formally defined good practices such as Good Laboratory Practice, Good Manufacturing Practice, Good Clinical Practice, Good Pharmacovigilance Practice, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Robust​&lt;br /&gt;
|A data set is said to be robust if it is not sensitive to departures from the assumptions on which its validity is strictly predicted (e.g., that the study plans used to generate data are protected against risks of bias).&lt;br /&gt;
|-​&lt;br /&gt;
|Should&lt;br /&gt;
|Indicates a strong recommendation; however, EQIPD recognizes that individual circumstances might justify an alternative strategy.​&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Solution	&lt;br /&gt;
|An answer to an identified challenge.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Support process&lt;br /&gt;
|An action or series of actions that provide the means needed to execute key processes in a quality-oriented manner.​&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Toolbox (EQIPD Toolbox)	​&lt;br /&gt;
|A structured and categorized online collection of various quality-related information, such as guidelines, protocols, and tools. The toolbox is used as a source of potential solutions by the EQIPD planning tool to populate the EQIPD Dossier.​&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Back to the [[EQIPD Quality System]]​.​​​​&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>B.gerlach</name></author>
		
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.go-eqipd.org/index.php?title=FAQ&amp;diff=477</id>
		<title>FAQ</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.go-eqipd.org/index.php?title=FAQ&amp;diff=477"/>
		<updated>2020-09-05T19:52:45Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;B.gerlach: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== About the quality system in general ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Can I appoint my student or postdoc to be the Process Owner for the EQIPD Quality System in my lab (group, department, institute)?​===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As explained in the corresponding Toolbox section, the Process owner should be competent and should have sufficient control of resources. Certain tasks and function​s can be delegated by the Process Owner to appropriate people in the research unit but the overall responsibility should stay with the competent (senior) person with relevant knowledge and access to resources (person that will likely remain in the research unit for a long time).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Contract Research Organizations (CROs) often do not know the purpose of research. How can they state in the study plan whether a study is to inform a formal knowledge claim or not?​===&lt;br /&gt;
If sponsor of a study does not provide such information or is not willing to have this information to be included in the study plan, then the &amp;quot;knowledge-claiming research&amp;quot; box should not be ticked. It is nevertheless expected that the study plan includes information about any and all measures taken to protect against the risks of bias. For all research, EQIPD recommends to apply maximal possible rigor. ​&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===If a study involves a series of independently performed experimental procedures, assessments and analyses, should they all be conducted with the same level of research rigor?​===&lt;br /&gt;
There is no such requirement. The only expectation is that, for every individual experiment, procedure or analysis, risks of bias are assessed and protective measures are transparently reported.​&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===How could small organizations (especially those operating virtually) fulfill the core requirement on Responsible conduct of research?​===&lt;br /&gt;
It may indeed be not possible in some cases to identify a person of trust or set up an anonymous mailbox or a confidential electronic &amp;quot;hotline&amp;quot; within the organization. from where concerns are triaged to a dedicated person.​​  In such situations, EQIPD advises to look for alternative solutions - a person of trust in the neighboring research unit or organization; a member of the advisory board; a representative of the funders or investors; a member of the IACUC or animal welfare body reviewing the in vivo work in the research unit. Even small biotech or CROs do not operate in complete isolation and one may only be advised to look around and identify individual(s) who would be willing to support research integrity efforts of the research unit and who would be in a position to deal with violations and allegations of misconduct in agreement with the national or institutional guidelines.​&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===In our laboratory, hand-written notes taken during the experiments are scanned and PDFs are then stored electronically. We treat these scanned copies as raw data and discard the paper originals. Is such practice acceptable?​===&lt;br /&gt;
If it is not possible to maintain both paper-based and electronic archive (laboratory notebook), then such practice is acceptable. Of course, such copies should be complete and of good quality.​​&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===We have a number of internal documents (templates, policies, procedures) written in a non-English language. Should these be translated?​===&lt;br /&gt;
No, there is no need to translate. You can make references to these internal documents, for example, in the Documentation Plan, etc. If you decide to conduct an external assessment of the Quality System performance (e.g. for accreditation purposes), EQIPD experts will read in the original language or have it translated into English. ​&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===We have a number of internal documents that, according to an internal policy, cannot be sent or taken outside of our organization. Will that prevent us from getting an EQIPD Quality System accreditation?===&lt;br /&gt;
No, albeit this creates some inconvenience, this is not a roadblock. Should these documents be seen by EQIPD experts as essential, this increases a probability that your research unit is chosen for onsite visit (rather being assessed remotely).​&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Specifically about knowledge-claiming research ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Contract Research Organizations (CROs) often do not know the purpose of research. How can they state in the study plan whether a study is to inform a formal knowledge claim or not?​===&lt;br /&gt;
If sponsor of a study does not provide such information or is not willing to have this information to be included in the study plan, then the &amp;quot;knowledge-claiming research&amp;quot; box should not be ticked. It is nevertheless expected that the study plan includes information about any and all measures taken to protect against the risks of bias. For all research, EQIPD recommends to apply maximal possible rigor. ​&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Are PK, bioanalysis and other “quantitative” studies in pharmacology informing a formal knowledge claim?===&lt;br /&gt;
Such studies often lack a “hypothesis” (scientific or statistical) but a “hypothesis” is not a requirement for “knowledge claim” studies. Thus, such studies may indeed be declared as research to inform a knowledge claim if the scientists decide so and apply maximal possible rigor.​&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Would EQIPD external or internal assessment experts need to judge which study belongs to the “knowledge claim” category and which not?​===&lt;br /&gt;
No, definitely NOT. EQIPD requests that the scientists themselves declare before doing a study whether it is intended to inform a knowledge claim or not. And it is the scientists themselves who conduct a risk assessment and decide what research rigor measures should be applied.  The job of internal or external assessors is only to confirm that experimental process and reporting are transparent.​&lt;br /&gt;
Let us assume I have no a priori intention for a knowledge claim when I plan my work. Nevertheless, I do the study(ies) under full rigor.  Can I still make a knowledge claim after the studies are completed?​EQIPD does recognize this example as highly relevant because there are indeed situations when, for example, a need to use the research resulrs to justify a certain decision is not evident when a study is planned. There are two ways to look at such situation.&lt;br /&gt;
On the one hand, in the end of the day, it is the research rigor that matters and not just the name of “knowledge-claiming research”.​  Therefore, in principle, all studies conducted under maximal possible rigor can support decision making, build confidence, etc., whether &amp;quot;knonwledge claim&amp;quot; was prespecified or not. However, if prespecified, studies must be conducted under maximal rigor or no such claim is possible. If, for some reason, there is a deviation from the pre-specified research rigor conditions during the course of the study, it needs to be clarified in the study report and the “knowledge claim” may no longer be valid.&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand, EQIPD stongly advises all EQIPD QS-compliant research units to declare the &amp;quot;knowledge claiming research&amp;quot; in ALL cases when studies are planned with maximum possible rigor (i.e. all conditions for a knowledge-claiming research are met). Such practice will help avoid any questions and doubts about value of the study.  Also, one should note that one does not need to know exactly if and how the study results can be used (e.g. for what kind of decisions) in order to declare a study to be &amp;quot;knowledge-claiming&amp;quot;.​&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
go to [[Toolbox]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>B.gerlach</name></author>
		
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.go-eqipd.org/index.php?title=FAQ&amp;diff=476</id>
		<title>FAQ</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.go-eqipd.org/index.php?title=FAQ&amp;diff=476"/>
		<updated>2020-09-05T19:51:35Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;B.gerlach: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== About the quality system in general ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Can I appoint my student or postdoc to be the Process Owner for the EQIPD Quality System in my lab (group, department, institute)?​===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* As explained in the corresponding Toolbox section, the Process owner should be competent and should have sufficient control of resources. Certain tasks and function​s can be delegated by the Process Owner to appropriate people in the research unit but the overall responsibility should stay with the competent (senior) person with relevant knowledge and access to resources (person that will likely remain in the research unit for a long time).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Contract Research Organizations (CROs) often do not know the purpose of research. How can they state in the study plan whether a study is to inform a formal knowledge claim or not?​===&lt;br /&gt;
* If sponsor of a study does not provide such information or is not willing to have this information to be included in the study plan, then the &amp;quot;knowledge-claiming research&amp;quot; box should not be ticked. It is nevertheless expected that the study plan includes information about any and all measures taken to protect against the risks of bias. For all research, EQIPD recommends to apply maximal possible rigor. ​&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===If a study involves a series of independently performed experimental procedures, assessments and analyses, should they all be conducted with the same level of research rigor?​===&lt;br /&gt;
* There is no such requirement. The only expectation is that, for every individual experiment, procedure or analysis, risks of bias are assessed and protective measures are transparently reported.​&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===How could small organizations (especially those operating virtually) fulfill the core requirement on Responsible conduct of research?​===&lt;br /&gt;
* It may indeed be not possible in some cases to identify a person of trust or set up an anonymous mailbox or a confidential electronic &amp;quot;hotline&amp;quot; within the organization. from where concerns are triaged to a dedicated person.​​  In such situations, EQIPD advises to look for alternative solutions - a person of trust in the neighboring research unit or organization; a member of the advisory board; a representative of the funders or investors; a member of the IACUC or animal welfare body reviewing the in vivo work in the research unit. Even small biotech or CROs do not operate in complete isolation and one may only be advised to look around and identify individual(s) who would be willing to support research integrity efforts of the research unit and who would be in a position to deal with violations and allegations of misconduct in agreement with the national or institutional guidelines.​&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===In our laboratory, hand-written notes taken during the experiments are scanned and PDFs are then stored electronically. We treat these scanned copies as raw data and discard the paper originals. Is such practice acceptable?​===&lt;br /&gt;
* If it is not possible to maintain both paper-based and electronic archive (laboratory notebook), then such practice is acceptable. Of course, such copies should be complete and of good quality.​​&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===We have a number of internal documents (templates, policies, procedures) written in a non-English language. Should these be translated?​===&lt;br /&gt;
* No, there is no need to translate. You can make references to these internal documents, for example, in the Documentation Plan, etc. If you decide to conduct an external assessment of the Quality System performance (e.g. for accreditation purposes), EQIPD experts will read in the original language or have it translated into English. ​&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===We have a number of internal documents that, according to an internal policy, cannot be sent or taken outside of our organization. Will that prevent us from getting an EQIPD Quality System accreditation?===&lt;br /&gt;
* No, albeit this creates some inconvenience, this is not a roadblock. Should these documents be seen by EQIPD experts as essential, this increases a probability that your research unit is chosen for onsite visit (rather being assessed remotely).​&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Specifically about knowledge-claiming research ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Contract Research Organizations (CROs) often do not know the purpose of research. How can they state in the study plan whether a study is to inform a formal knowledge claim or not?​===&lt;br /&gt;
* If sponsor of a study does not provide such information or is not willing to have this information to be included in the study plan, then the &amp;quot;knowledge-claiming research&amp;quot; box should not be ticked. It is nevertheless expected that the study plan includes information about any and all measures taken to protect against the risks of bias. For all research, EQIPD recommends to apply maximal possible rigor. ​&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Are PK, bioanalysis and other “quantitative” studies in pharmacology informing a formal knowledge claim?===&lt;br /&gt;
* Such studies often lack a “hypothesis” (scientific or statistical) but a “hypothesis” is not a requirement for “knowledge claim” studies. Thus, such studies may indeed be declared as research to inform a knowledge claim if the scientists decide so and apply maximal possible rigor.​&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Would EQIPD external or internal assessment experts need to judge which study belongs to the “knowledge claim” category and which not?​===&lt;br /&gt;
No, definitely NOT. EQIPD requests that the scientists themselves declare before doing a study whether it is intended to inform a knowledge claim or not. And it is the scientists themselves who conduct a risk assessment and decide what research rigor measures should be applied.  The job of internal or external assessors is only to confirm that experimental process and reporting are transparent.​&lt;br /&gt;
Let us assume I have no a priori intention for a knowledge claim when I plan my work. Nevertheless, I do the study(ies) under full rigor.  Can I still make a knowledge claim after the studies are completed?​EQIPD does recognize this example as highly relevant because there are indeed situations when, for example, a need to use the research resulrs to justify a certain decision is not evident when a study is planned. There are two ways to look at such situation.&lt;br /&gt;
On the one hand, in the end of the day, it is the research rigor that matters and not just the name of “knowledge-claiming research”.​  Therefore, in principle, all studies conducted under maximal possible rigor can support decision making, build confidence, etc., whether &amp;quot;knonwledge claim&amp;quot; was prespecified or not. However, if prespecified, studies must be conducted under maximal rigor or no such claim is possible. If, for some reason, there is a deviation from the pre-specified research rigor conditions during the course of the study, it needs to be clarified in the study report and the “knowledge claim” may no longer be valid.&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand, EQIPD stongly advises all EQIPD QS-compliant research units to declare the &amp;quot;knowledge claiming research&amp;quot; in ALL cases when studies are planned with maximum possible rigor (i.e. all conditions for a knowledge-claiming research are met). Such practice will help avoid any questions and doubts about value of the study.  Also, one should note that one does not need to know exactly if and how the study results can be used (e.g. for what kind of decisions) in order to declare a study to be &amp;quot;knowledge-claiming&amp;quot;.​&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
go to [[Toolbox]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>B.gerlach</name></author>
		
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.go-eqipd.org/index.php?title=1.3.1_Transparency&amp;diff=472</id>
		<title>1.3.1 Transparency</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.go-eqipd.org/index.php?title=1.3.1_Transparency&amp;diff=472"/>
		<updated>2020-09-05T19:40:15Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;B.gerlach: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== A. Background &amp;amp; Definitions ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
EQIPD Quality System relies on and should become part of the overall organizational quality culture.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Research quality is not just about formal rules and regulations on how data is collected, processed and reported.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many initiatives to enhance value of research data focus on transparency of various research-related activities - from transparency within the research organization to transparent disclosure of conflict of interests when communicating outside the organization.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== ​B. Guidance &amp;amp; Expectations ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
EQIPD does not expect any formal documents or analyses to be conducted. However, it is highly desirable that the Process Owner and the organization in general endorse transparency at every level.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Examples of transparent practices include but are not limited to:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Members of a research unit being aware of who does what, e.g.:&lt;br /&gt;
a shared list or inventory of running projects and experiments&lt;br /&gt;
a clear understanding of the individual roles in the projects, experiments and emerging publications&lt;br /&gt;
Members of a research unit being aware of each other&amp;#039;s potential conflicts of interest&lt;br /&gt;
Members of a research unit being aware of decisions and decision criteria&lt;br /&gt;
regarding publications, conference participation, project advacement or termination, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== ​C. Resources ==&lt;br /&gt;
to be added&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----------------&lt;br /&gt;
back to [[Toolbox]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Next item: [[1.3.2 Sources of pressure and bias-producing communication of pressure]]​&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>B.gerlach</name></author>
		
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.go-eqipd.org/index.php?title=2.1.1_Study_protocol&amp;diff=72</id>
		<title>2.1.1 Study protocol</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.go-eqipd.org/index.php?title=2.1.1_Study_protocol&amp;diff=72"/>
		<updated>2020-09-01T13:10:35Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;B.gerlach: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== ​​​​​​​​​​​​​A. Background &amp;amp; Definitions ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Within the EQIPD Quality System and the Toolbox, the term &amp;quot;Study plan&amp;quot; refers to a document that is used to describe and summarize information related to a specific study (experiment). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A single study plan may contain references to one or more research methods and assays.  For protocols for specific research protocols and assays, please refer to item 3.5.2 [[Protocols for methods and assays]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== B. Guidance &amp;amp; Expectations ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is strongly recommended that, for every study (experiment), there is a study plan prepared prior to the study being conducted. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each study plan should identify author(s), date when it was created and a unique ID of the study that it describes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
EQIPD has developed a template (please see below) that outlines the suggested structure and content of a Study Plan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This template is provided as a general guidance and serves only as an example:&lt;br /&gt;
# Title of the study&lt;br /&gt;
# Study hypothesis&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Purpose of research]] (see section 2.1.4 for comments and further guidance)&lt;br /&gt;
## ​Indicate whether the research is undertaken with the intention to inform a formal knowledge claim &lt;br /&gt;
# Choice of experimental model(s) or method(s)&lt;br /&gt;
## Describe how and why specific models and/or methods were chosen (e.g. based on [[Appraisal of literature and systematic reviews]] - see section 2.1.3 for comments and further guidance).&lt;br /&gt;
## If animal subjects are involved, justify why alternative are not suitable; as well as the selection of species, strain, age, and sex (if applicable) &lt;br /&gt;
# Choice of controls&lt;br /&gt;
## Describe the controls (negative, positive, shams), why and how these were chosen (e.g. based on [[Appraisal of literature and systematic reviews]] - see section 2.1.3 for comments and further guidance).&lt;br /&gt;
## If a positive control is included, indicate explicitly how the study outcome will be interpreted if positive control fails.&lt;br /&gt;
# Measures against risks of bias&lt;br /&gt;
## Randomization (if selected, a [[Randomisation]] protocol must be available - see section 2.1.8 for comments and further guidance)&lt;br /&gt;
## Blinding (if selected, a [[Blinding]] protocol must be available - see section 2.1.7 for comments and further guidance)&lt;br /&gt;
## If randomization and/or blinding are not applied, please describe the reasons as well as any other measures to control the risks of bias that will be applied.&lt;br /&gt;
# Sample size&lt;br /&gt;
## Describe methods used to estimate the sample size (such as power analysis).&lt;br /&gt;
## For definitions and guidance on [[Sample size and power analysis]] - see section 2.1.6 for comments and further guidance.&lt;br /&gt;
## Specify the primary outcome measure that was used to determine the sample size (see [[ARRIVE Essential - Outcome measures]])&lt;br /&gt;
## The sample size is the number of experimental units per group (for definition of experimental unit – see [[ARRIVE Essential - Study design]])&lt;br /&gt;
## Specify the exact number of experimental units allocated to each group, and the total number in each experiment.&lt;br /&gt;
## For definitions and guidance on sample size estimation and power analysis, please follow the link.&lt;br /&gt;
# Inclusion and exclusion criteria&lt;br /&gt;
## Indicate any [[Inclusion and exclusion criteria]] to be applied (for further information - see section 2.1.9 for comments and further guidance)&lt;br /&gt;
# Animal resources, reagents and materials&lt;br /&gt;
## Include a detailed description of reagents and materials and/or provide references to separate document(s) with the relevant information (e.g. if you chose to use section 3.3.3 of the Dossier for [[Management of research materials and reagents]])&lt;br /&gt;
##If animals are used, provide sufficient details expected for reporting ([[ARRIVE 2.0]]&lt;br /&gt;
# Study design overview&lt;br /&gt;
## For complex study designs, include a visual representation that more easily interpreted than a text description (e.g. a timeline diagram, table or flow chart – e.g. using an Experimental Design Assistant).&lt;br /&gt;
##Include a detailed description of methods and experimental procedures and/or provide references to separate document(s) with the relevant information (e.g. if you chose to use section 3.5.2 of the Dossier for storing [[Protocols for methods and assays]])11.&lt;br /&gt;
# Experimental procedures&lt;br /&gt;
## Include a detailed description of methods and experimental procedures and/or provide references to separate document(s) with the relevant information (e.g. if you chose to use section 3.5.2 of the Dossier for storing [[Protocols for methods and assays]])&lt;br /&gt;
## If experimental methods are not described in separate documents, follow [[ARRIVE 2.0]] Recommended Set suggestions (items 14-17 here as well as guidance provided here)&lt;br /&gt;
## If more than one method or procedure is used, describe sequence or experimental workflow&lt;br /&gt;
## For each experimental group, including controls, describe the procedures in enough detail to allow others to replicate them, including (more guidance - [[ARRIVE Essential - Experimental procedures]])&lt;br /&gt;
### What was done, how it was done and what was used&lt;br /&gt;
### When and how often&lt;br /&gt;
### Where (including detail of any acclimation periods)&lt;br /&gt;
### Why (provide rationale for procedures)&lt;br /&gt;
# Data analysis&lt;br /&gt;
## Describe the processing of raw data (for definition of raw data – see section 2.3.1 [[Generation, recording, handling and archiving of raw data]]​)&lt;br /&gt;
## Describe statistical method(s) to be applied for each analysis ([[Statistical analysis]])&lt;br /&gt;
## Describe any methods used to assess whether the data met the assumptions of the statistical approach ([[ARRIVE Essential - Statistical methods]])&lt;br /&gt;
# Amendments&lt;br /&gt;
## Describe what was changed in the original study plan, why, when and by whom&lt;br /&gt;
## When amending the study plan, please make sure not to over-write the original version&lt;br /&gt;
## Amendments may be saved as documents separate from the original study plan&lt;br /&gt;
# References&lt;br /&gt;
## If necessary, include references&lt;br /&gt;
# Preregistration&lt;br /&gt;
## ​EQIPD strongly recommends to pre-register study (experimental) plans (more information – [[Preregistration]])&lt;br /&gt;
## If pre-registered, please indicate the platform used, registration link and other relevant reference information&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;RISK ASSESSMENT&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* If study plan references to other protocols or dociuments (e.g. protocol for a specific experimental method), is the reference made to the current (relevant) version)?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== C. Resources ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Template to create a study plan based on the above guidance - 2.1.1 Study plan.docx, 2.1.1 Study plan with macro.docm&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Experimental design tools:&lt;br /&gt;
* MANILA (Matched Animal Analysis): link to the original article (here) and the tool (here)&lt;br /&gt;
* NC3Rs’ Experimental Design Assistant - www.eda.nc3rs.org.uk&lt;br /&gt;
​&lt;br /&gt;
----------------&lt;br /&gt;
back to toolbox&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Next item: [[2.1.2 Unique study ID]]​&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>B.gerlach</name></author>
		
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.go-eqipd.org/index.php?title=2.1.1_Study_protocol&amp;diff=71</id>
		<title>2.1.1 Study protocol</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.go-eqipd.org/index.php?title=2.1.1_Study_protocol&amp;diff=71"/>
		<updated>2020-09-01T13:10:12Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;B.gerlach: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== ​​​​​​​​​​​​​A. Background &amp;amp; Definitions ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Within the EQIPD Quality System and the Toolbox, the term &amp;quot;Study plan&amp;quot; refers to a document that is used to describe and summarize information related to a specific study (experiment). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A single study plan may contain references to one or more research methods and assays.  For protocols for specific research protocols and assays, please refer to item 3.5.2 [[Protocols for methods and assays]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== B. Guidance &amp;amp; Expectations ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is strongly recommended that, for every study (experiment), there is a study plan prepared prior to the study being conducted. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each study plan should identify author(s), date when it was created and a unique ID of the study that it describes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
EQIPD has developed a template (please see below) that outlines the suggested structure and content of a Study Plan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This template is provided as a general guidance and serves only as an example:&lt;br /&gt;
# Title of the study&lt;br /&gt;
# Study hypothesis&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Purpose of research]] (see section 2.1.4 for comments and further guidance)&lt;br /&gt;
## ​Indicate whether the research is undertaken with the intention to inform a formal knowledge claim &lt;br /&gt;
# Choice of experimental model(s) or method(s)&lt;br /&gt;
## Describe how and why specific models and/or methods were chosen (e.g. based on [[Appraisal of literature and systematic reviews]] - see section 2.1.3 for comments and further guidance).&lt;br /&gt;
## If animal subjects are involved, justify why alternative are not suitable; as well as the selection of species, strain, age, and sex (if applicable) &lt;br /&gt;
# Choice of controls&lt;br /&gt;
## Describe the controls (negative, positive, shams), why and how these were chosen (e.g. based on [[Appraisal of literature and systematic reviews]] - see section 2.1.3 for comments and further guidance).&lt;br /&gt;
## If a positive control is included, indicate explicitly how the study outcome will be interpreted if positive control fails.&lt;br /&gt;
# Measures against risks of bias&lt;br /&gt;
## Randomization (if selected, a [[Randomisation]] protocol must be available - see section 2.1.8 for comments and further guidance)&lt;br /&gt;
## Blinding (if selected, a [[Blinding]] protocol must be available - see section 2.1.7 for comments and further guidance)&lt;br /&gt;
## If randomization and/or blinding are not applied, please describe the reasons as well as any other measures to control the risks of bias that will be applied.&lt;br /&gt;
# Sample size&lt;br /&gt;
## Describe methods used to estimate the sample size (such as power analysis).&lt;br /&gt;
## For definitions and guidance on [[Sample size and power analysis]] - see section 2.1.6 for comments and further guidance.&lt;br /&gt;
## Specify the primary outcome measure that was used to determine the sample size (see [[ARRIVE Essential - Outcome measures]])&lt;br /&gt;
## The sample size is the number of experimental units per group (for definition of experimental unit – see [[ARRIVE Essential - Study design]])&lt;br /&gt;
## Specify the exact number of experimental units allocated to each group, and the total number in each experiment.&lt;br /&gt;
## For definitions and guidance on sample size estimation and power analysis, please follow the link.&lt;br /&gt;
# Inclusion and exclusion criteria&lt;br /&gt;
## Indicate any [[Inclusion and exclusion criteria]] to be applied (for further information - see section 2.1.9 for comments and further guidance)&lt;br /&gt;
# Animal resources, reagents and materials&lt;br /&gt;
## Include a detailed description of reagents and materials and/or provide references to separate document(s) with the relevant information (e.g. if you chose to use section 3.3.3 of the Dossier for [[Management of research materials and reagents]])&lt;br /&gt;
##If animals are used, provide sufficient details expected for reporting ([[ARRIVE 2.0]]&lt;br /&gt;
# Study design overview&lt;br /&gt;
​##For complex study designs, include a visual representation that more easily interpreted than a text description (e.g. a timeline diagram, table or flow chart – e.g. using an Experimental Design Assistant).&lt;br /&gt;
##Include a detailed description of methods and experimental procedures and/or provide references to separate document(s) with the relevant information (e.g. if you chose to use section 3.5.2 of the Dossier for storing [[Protocols for methods and assays]])11.&lt;br /&gt;
# Experimental procedures&lt;br /&gt;
## Include a detailed description of methods and experimental procedures and/or provide references to separate document(s) with the relevant information (e.g. if you chose to use section 3.5.2 of the Dossier for storing [[Protocols for methods and assays]])&lt;br /&gt;
## If experimental methods are not described in separate documents, follow [[ARRIVE 2.0]] Recommended Set suggestions (items 14-17 here as well as guidance provided here)&lt;br /&gt;
## If more than one method or procedure is used, describe sequence or experimental workflow&lt;br /&gt;
## For each experimental group, including controls, describe the procedures in enough detail to allow others to replicate them, including (more guidance - [[ARRIVE Essential - Experimental procedures]])&lt;br /&gt;
### What was done, how it was done and what was used&lt;br /&gt;
### When and how often&lt;br /&gt;
### Where (including detail of any acclimation periods)&lt;br /&gt;
### Why (provide rationale for procedures)&lt;br /&gt;
# Data analysis&lt;br /&gt;
## Describe the processing of raw data (for definition of raw data – see section 2.3.1 [[Generation, recording, handling and archiving of raw data]]​)&lt;br /&gt;
## Describe statistical method(s) to be applied for each analysis ([[Statistical analysis]])&lt;br /&gt;
## Describe any methods used to assess whether the data met the assumptions of the statistical approach ([[ARRIVE Essential - Statistical methods]])&lt;br /&gt;
# Amendments&lt;br /&gt;
## Describe what was changed in the original study plan, why, when and by whom&lt;br /&gt;
## When amending the study plan, please make sure not to over-write the original version&lt;br /&gt;
## Amendments may be saved as documents separate from the original study plan&lt;br /&gt;
# References&lt;br /&gt;
## If necessary, include references&lt;br /&gt;
# Preregistration&lt;br /&gt;
## ​EQIPD strongly recommends to pre-register study (experimental) plans (more information – [[Preregistration]])&lt;br /&gt;
## If pre-registered, please indicate the platform used, registration link and other relevant reference information&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;RISK ASSESSMENT&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* If study plan references to other protocols or dociuments (e.g. protocol for a specific experimental method), is the reference made to the current (relevant) version)?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== C. Resources ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Template to create a study plan based on the above guidance - 2.1.1 Study plan.docx, 2.1.1 Study plan with macro.docm&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Experimental design tools:&lt;br /&gt;
* MANILA (Matched Animal Analysis): link to the original article (here) and the tool (here)&lt;br /&gt;
* NC3Rs’ Experimental Design Assistant - www.eda.nc3rs.org.uk&lt;br /&gt;
​&lt;br /&gt;
----------------&lt;br /&gt;
back to toolbox&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Next item: [[2.1.2 Unique study ID]]​&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>B.gerlach</name></author>
		
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.go-eqipd.org/index.php?title=2.1.1_Study_protocol&amp;diff=70</id>
		<title>2.1.1 Study protocol</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.go-eqipd.org/index.php?title=2.1.1_Study_protocol&amp;diff=70"/>
		<updated>2020-09-01T13:09:35Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;B.gerlach: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== ​​​​​​​​​​​​​A. Background &amp;amp; Definitions ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Within the EQIPD Quality System and the Toolbox, the term &amp;quot;Study plan&amp;quot; refers to a document that is used to describe and summarize information related to a specific study (experiment). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A single study plan may contain references to one or more research methods and assays.  For protocols for specific research protocols and assays, please refer to item 3.5.2 [[Protocols for methods and assays]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== B. Guidance &amp;amp; Expectations ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is strongly recommended that, for every study (experiment), there is a study plan prepared prior to the study being conducted. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each study plan should identify author(s), date when it was created and a unique ID of the study that it describes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
EQIPD has developed a template (please see below) that outlines the suggested structure and content of a Study Plan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This template is provided as a general guidance and serves only as an example:&lt;br /&gt;
# Title of the study&lt;br /&gt;
# Study hypothesis&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Purpose of research]] (see section 2.1.4 for comments and further guidance)&lt;br /&gt;
## ​Indicate whether the research is undertaken with the intention to inform a formal knowledge claim &lt;br /&gt;
# Choice of experimental model(s) or method(s)&lt;br /&gt;
## Describe how and why specific models and/or methods were chosen (e.g. based on [[Appraisal of literature and systematic reviews]] - see section 2.1.3 for comments and further guidance).&lt;br /&gt;
## If animal subjects are involved, justify why alternative are not suitable; as well as the selection of species, strain, age, and sex (if applicable) &lt;br /&gt;
# Choice of controls&lt;br /&gt;
## Describe the controls (negative, positive, shams), why and how these were chosen (e.g. based on [[Appraisal of literature and systematic reviews]] - see section 2.1.3 for comments and further guidance).&lt;br /&gt;
## If a positive control is included, indicate explicitly how the study outcome will be interpreted if positive control fails.&lt;br /&gt;
# Measures against risks of bias&lt;br /&gt;
## Randomization (if selected, a [[Randomisation]] protocol must be available - see section 2.1.8 for comments and further guidance)&lt;br /&gt;
## Blinding (if selected, a [[Blinding]] protocol must be available - see section 2.1.7 for comments and further guidance)&lt;br /&gt;
## If randomization and/or blinding are not applied, please describe the reasons as well as any other measures to control the risks of bias that will be applied.&lt;br /&gt;
# Sample size&lt;br /&gt;
## Describe methods used to estimate the sample size (such as power analysis).&lt;br /&gt;
## For definitions and guidance on [[Sample size and power analysis]] - see section 2.1.6 for comments and further guidance.&lt;br /&gt;
## Specify the primary outcome measure that was used to determine the sample size (see [[ARRIVE Essential - Outcome measures]])&lt;br /&gt;
## The sample size is the number of experimental units per group (for definition of experimental unit – see [[ARRIVE Essential - Study design]])&lt;br /&gt;
## Specify the exact number of experimental units allocated to each group, and the total number in each experiment.&lt;br /&gt;
## For definitions and guidance on sample size estimation and power analysis, please follow the link.&lt;br /&gt;
# Inclusion and exclusion criteria&lt;br /&gt;
## Indicate any [[Inclusion and exclusion criteria]] to be applied (for further information - see section 2.1.9 for comments and further guidance)&lt;br /&gt;
# Animal resources, reagents and materials&lt;br /&gt;
​## Include a detailed description of reagents and materials and/or provide references to separate document(s) with the relevant information (e.g. if you chose to use section 3.3.3 of the Dossier for [[Management of research materials and reagents]])&lt;br /&gt;
##If animals are used, provide sufficient details expected for reporting ([[ARRIVE 2.0]]&lt;br /&gt;
# Study design overview&lt;br /&gt;
​##For complex study designs, include a visual representation that more easily interpreted than a text description (e.g. a timeline diagram, table or flow chart – e.g. using an Experimental Design Assistant).&lt;br /&gt;
##Include a detailed description of methods and experimental procedures and/or provide references to separate document(s) with the relevant information (e.g. if you chose to use section 3.5.2 of the Dossier for storing [[Protocols for methods and assays]])11.&lt;br /&gt;
# Experimental procedures&lt;br /&gt;
## Include a detailed description of methods and experimental procedures and/or provide references to separate document(s) with the relevant information (e.g. if you chose to use section 3.5.2 of the Dossier for storing [[Protocols for methods and assays]])&lt;br /&gt;
## If experimental methods are not described in separate documents, follow [[ARRIVE 2.0]] Recommended Set suggestions (items 14-17 here as well as guidance provided here)&lt;br /&gt;
## If more than one method or procedure is used, describe sequence or experimental workflow&lt;br /&gt;
## For each experimental group, including controls, describe the procedures in enough detail to allow others to replicate them, including (more guidance - [[ARRIVE Essential - Experimental procedures]])&lt;br /&gt;
### What was done, how it was done and what was used&lt;br /&gt;
### When and how often&lt;br /&gt;
### Where (including detail of any acclimation periods)&lt;br /&gt;
### Why (provide rationale for procedures)&lt;br /&gt;
# Data analysis&lt;br /&gt;
## Describe the processing of raw data (for definition of raw data – see section 2.3.1 [[Generation, recording, handling and archiving of raw data]]​)&lt;br /&gt;
## Describe statistical method(s) to be applied for each analysis ([[Statistical analysis]])&lt;br /&gt;
## Describe any methods used to assess whether the data met the assumptions of the statistical approach ([[ARRIVE Essential - Statistical methods]])&lt;br /&gt;
# Amendments&lt;br /&gt;
## Describe what was changed in the original study plan, why, when and by whom&lt;br /&gt;
## When amending the study plan, please make sure not to over-write the original version&lt;br /&gt;
## Amendments may be saved as documents separate from the original study plan&lt;br /&gt;
# References&lt;br /&gt;
## If necessary, include references&lt;br /&gt;
# Preregistration&lt;br /&gt;
## ​EQIPD strongly recommends to pre-register study (experimental) plans (more information – [[Preregistration]])&lt;br /&gt;
## If pre-registered, please indicate the platform used, registration link and other relevant reference information&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;RISK ASSESSMENT&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* If study plan references to other protocols or dociuments (e.g. protocol for a specific experimental method), is the reference made to the current (relevant) version)?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== C. Resources ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Template to create a study plan based on the above guidance - 2.1.1 Study plan.docx, 2.1.1 Study plan with macro.docm&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Experimental design tools:&lt;br /&gt;
* MANILA (Matched Animal Analysis): link to the original article (here) and the tool (here)&lt;br /&gt;
* NC3Rs’ Experimental Design Assistant - www.eda.nc3rs.org.uk&lt;br /&gt;
​&lt;br /&gt;
----------------&lt;br /&gt;
back to toolbox&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Next item: [[2.1.2 Unique study ID]]​&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>B.gerlach</name></author>
		
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.go-eqipd.org/index.php?title=2.1.1_Study_protocol&amp;diff=69</id>
		<title>2.1.1 Study protocol</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.go-eqipd.org/index.php?title=2.1.1_Study_protocol&amp;diff=69"/>
		<updated>2020-09-01T13:07:47Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;B.gerlach: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== ​​​​​​​​​​​​​A. Background &amp;amp; Definitions ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Within the EQIPD Quality System and the Toolbox, the term &amp;quot;Study plan&amp;quot; refers to a document that is used to describe and summarize information related to a specific study (experiment). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A single study plan may contain references to one or more research methods and assays.  For protocols for specific research protocols and assays, please refer to item 3.5.2 [[Protocols for methods and assays]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== B. Guidance &amp;amp; Expectations ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is strongly recommended that, for every study (experiment), there is a study plan prepared prior to the study being conducted. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each study plan should identify author(s), date when it was created and a unique ID of the study that it describes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
EQIPD has developed a template (please see below) that outlines the suggested structure and content of a Study Plan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This template is provided as a general guidance and serves only as an example:&lt;br /&gt;
# Title of the study&lt;br /&gt;
# Study hypothesis&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Purpose of research]] (see section 2.1.4 for comments and further guidance)&lt;br /&gt;
## ​Indicate whether the research is undertaken with the intention to inform a formal knowledge claim &lt;br /&gt;
# Choice of experimental model(s) or method(s)&lt;br /&gt;
## Describe how and why specific models and/or methods were chosen (e.g. based on [[Appraisal of literature and systematic reviews]] - see section 2.1.3 for comments and further guidance).&lt;br /&gt;
## If animal subjects are involved, justify why alternative are not suitable; as well as the selection of species, strain, age, and sex (if applicable) &lt;br /&gt;
# Choice of controls&lt;br /&gt;
## Describe the controls (negative, positive, shams), why and how these were chosen (e.g. based on [[Appraisal of literature and systematic reviews]] - see section 2.1.3 for comments and further guidance).&lt;br /&gt;
## If a positive control is included, indicate explicitly how the study outcome will be interpreted if positive control fails.&lt;br /&gt;
# Measures against risks of bias&lt;br /&gt;
## Randomization (if selected, a [[Randomisation]] protocol must be available - see section 2.1.8 for comments and further guidance)&lt;br /&gt;
## Blinding (if selected, a [[Blinding]] protocol must be available - see section 2.1.7 for comments and further guidance)&lt;br /&gt;
## If randomization and/or blinding are not applied, please describe the reasons as well as any other measures to control the risks of bias that will be applied.&lt;br /&gt;
# Sample size&lt;br /&gt;
## Describe methods used to estimate the sample size (such as power analysis).&lt;br /&gt;
## For definitions and guidance on [[Sample size and power analysis]] - see section 2.1.6 for comments and further guidance.&lt;br /&gt;
## Specify the primary outcome measure that was used to determine the sample size (see [[ARRIVE Essential - Outcome measures]])&lt;br /&gt;
## The sample size is the number of experimental units per group (for definition of experimental unit – see [[ARRIVE Essential - Study design]])&lt;br /&gt;
​## Specify the exact number of experimental units allocated to each group, and the total number in each experiment.&lt;br /&gt;
## For definitions and guidance on sample size estimation and power analysis, please follow the link.&lt;br /&gt;
# Inclusion and exclusion criteria&lt;br /&gt;
## Indicate any [[Inclusion and exclusion criteria]] to be applied (for further information - see section 2.1.9 for comments and further guidance)&lt;br /&gt;
# Animal resources, reagents and materials&lt;br /&gt;
​## Include a detailed description of reagents and materials and/or provide references to separate document(s) with the relevant information (e.g. if you chose to use section 3.3.3 of the Dossier for [[Management of research materials and reagents]])&lt;br /&gt;
##If animals are used, provide sufficient details expected for reporting ([[ARRIVE 2.0]]&lt;br /&gt;
# Study design overview&lt;br /&gt;
​##For complex study designs, include a visual representation that more easily interpreted than a text description (e.g. a timeline diagram, table or flow chart – e.g. using an Experimental Design Assistant).&lt;br /&gt;
##Include a detailed description of methods and experimental procedures and/or provide references to separate document(s) with the relevant information (e.g. if you chose to use section 3.5.2 of the Dossier for storing [[Protocols for methods and assays]])11.&lt;br /&gt;
# Experimental procedures&lt;br /&gt;
## Include a detailed description of methods and experimental procedures and/or provide references to separate document(s) with the relevant information (e.g. if you chose to use section 3.5.2 of the Dossier for storing [[Protocols for methods and assays]])&lt;br /&gt;
## If experimental methods are not described in separate documents, follow [[ARRIVE 2.0]] Recommended Set suggestions (items 14-17 here as well as guidance provided here)&lt;br /&gt;
## If more than one method or procedure is used, describe sequence or experimental workflow&lt;br /&gt;
## For each experimental group, including controls, describe the procedures in enough detail to allow others to replicate them, including (more guidance - [[ARRIVE Essential - Experimental procedures]])&lt;br /&gt;
### What was done, how it was done and what was used&lt;br /&gt;
### When and how often&lt;br /&gt;
### Where (including detail of any acclimation periods)&lt;br /&gt;
### Why (provide rationale for procedures)&lt;br /&gt;
# Data analysis&lt;br /&gt;
## Describe the processing of raw data (for definition of raw data – see section 2.3.1 [[Generation, recording, handling and archiving of raw data]]​)&lt;br /&gt;
## Describe statistical method(s) to be applied for each analysis ([[Statistical analysis]])&lt;br /&gt;
## Describe any methods used to assess whether the data met the assumptions of the statistical approach ([[ARRIVE Essential - Statistical methods]])&lt;br /&gt;
# Amendments&lt;br /&gt;
## Describe what was changed in the original study plan, why, when and by whom&lt;br /&gt;
## When amending the study plan, please make sure not to over-write the original version&lt;br /&gt;
## Amendments may be saved as documents separate from the original study plan&lt;br /&gt;
# References&lt;br /&gt;
## If necessary, include references&lt;br /&gt;
# Preregistration&lt;br /&gt;
## ​EQIPD strongly recommends to pre-register study (experimental) plans (more information – [[Preregistration]])&lt;br /&gt;
## If pre-registered, please indicate the platform used, registration link and other relevant reference information&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;RISK ASSESSMENT&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* If study plan references to other protocols or dociuments (e.g. protocol for a specific experimental method), is the reference made to the current (relevant) version)?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== C. Resources ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Template to create a study plan based on the above guidance - 2.1.1 Study plan.docx, 2.1.1 Study plan with macro.docm&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Experimental design tools:&lt;br /&gt;
* MANILA (Matched Animal Analysis): link to the original article (here) and the tool (here)&lt;br /&gt;
* NC3Rs’ Experimental Design Assistant - www.eda.nc3rs.org.uk&lt;br /&gt;
​&lt;br /&gt;
----------------&lt;br /&gt;
back to toolbox&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Next item: [[2.1.2 Unique study ID]]​&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>B.gerlach</name></author>
		
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.go-eqipd.org/index.php?title=2.1.1_Study_protocol&amp;diff=68</id>
		<title>2.1.1 Study protocol</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.go-eqipd.org/index.php?title=2.1.1_Study_protocol&amp;diff=68"/>
		<updated>2020-09-01T13:03:30Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;B.gerlach: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== ​​​​​​​​​​​​​A. Background &amp;amp; Definitions ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Within the EQIPD Quality System and the Toolbox, the term &amp;quot;Study plan&amp;quot; refers to a document that is used to describe and summarize information related to a specific study (experiment). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A single study plan may contain references to one or more research methods and assays.  For protocols for specific research protocols and assays, please refer to item 3.5.2 [[Protocols for methods and assays]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== B. Guidance &amp;amp; Expectations ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is strongly recommended that, for every study (experiment), there is a study plan prepared prior to the study being conducted. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each study plan should identify author(s), date when it was created and a unique ID of the study that it describes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
EQIPD has developed a template (please see below) that outlines the suggested structure and content of a Study Plan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This template is provided as a general guidance and serves only as an example:&lt;br /&gt;
# Title of the study&lt;br /&gt;
# Study hypothesis&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Purpose of research]] (see section 2.1.4 for comments and further guidance)&lt;br /&gt;
## ​Indicate whether the research is undertaken with the intention to inform a formal knowledge claim &lt;br /&gt;
# Choice of experimental model(s) or method(s)&lt;br /&gt;
## Describe how and why specific models and/or methods were chosen (e.g. based on [[Appraisal of literature and systematic reviews]] - see section 2.1.3 for comments and further guidance).&lt;br /&gt;
## If animal subjects are involved, justify why alternative are not suitable; as well as the selection of species, strain, age, and sex (if applicable) &lt;br /&gt;
# Choice of controls&lt;br /&gt;
## Describe the controls (negative, positive, shams), why and how these were chosen (e.g. based on [[Appraisal of literature and systematic reviews]] - see section 2.1.3 for comments and further guidance).&lt;br /&gt;
## If a positive control is included, indicate explicitly how the study outcome will be interpreted if positive control fails.&lt;br /&gt;
# Measures against risks of bias&lt;br /&gt;
Randomization (if selected, a [[Randomisation]] protocol must be available - see section 2.1.8 for comments and further guidance)&lt;br /&gt;
Blinding (if selected, a [[Blinding]] protocol must be available - see section 2.1.7 for comments and further guidance)&lt;br /&gt;
If randomization and/or blinding are not applied, please describe the reasons as well as any other measures to control the risks of bias that will be applied.&lt;br /&gt;
7.	Sample size&lt;br /&gt;
Describe methods used to estimate the sample size (such as power analysis).&lt;br /&gt;
For definitions and guidance on [[Sample size and power analysis]] - see section 2.1.6 for comments and further guidance.&lt;br /&gt;
Specify the primary outcome measure that was used to determine the sample size (see [[ARRIVE Essential - Outcome measures]])&lt;br /&gt;
The sample size is the number of experimental units per group (for definition of experimental unit – see [[ARRIVE Essential - Study design]])&lt;br /&gt;
​Specify the exact number of experimental units allocated to each group, and the total number in each experiment.&lt;br /&gt;
For definitions and guidance on sample size estimation and power analysis, please follow the link.&lt;br /&gt;
8.	Inclusion and exclusion criteria&lt;br /&gt;
Indicate any [[Inclusion and exclusion criteria]] to be applied (for further information - see section 2.1.9 for comments and further guidance)&lt;br /&gt;
9.	Animal resources, reagents and materials&lt;br /&gt;
​Include a detailed description of reagents and materials and/or provide references to separate document(s) with the relevant information (e.g. if you chose to use section 3.3.3 of the Dossier for [[Management of research materials and reagents]])&lt;br /&gt;
If animals are used, provide sufficient details expected for reporting ([[ARRIVE 2.0]]&lt;br /&gt;
10.	Study design overview&lt;br /&gt;
​For complex study designs, include a visual representation that more easily interpreted than a text description (e.g. a timeline diagram, table or flow chart – e.g. using an Experimental Design Assistant).&lt;br /&gt;
Include a detailed description of methods and experimental procedures and/or provide references to separate document(s) with the relevant information (e.g. if you chose to use section 3.5.2 of the Dossier for storing [[Protocols for methods and assays]])11.&lt;br /&gt;
11.	Experimental procedures&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Include a detailed description of methods and experimental procedures and/or provide references to separate document(s) with the relevant information (e.g. if you chose to use section 3.5.2 of the Dossier for storing [[Protocols for methods and assays]])&lt;br /&gt;
If experimental methods are not described in separate documents, follow [[ARRIVE 2.0]] Recommended Set suggestions (items 14-17 here as well as guidance provided here)&lt;br /&gt;
If more than one method or procedure is used, describe sequence or experimental workflow&lt;br /&gt;
For each experimental group, including controls, describe the procedures in enough detail to allow others to replicate them, including (more guidance - [[ARRIVE Essential - Experimental procedures]])&lt;br /&gt;
What was done, how it was done and what was used&lt;br /&gt;
When and how often&lt;br /&gt;
Where (including detail of any acclimation periods)&lt;br /&gt;
Why (provide rationale for procedures)&lt;br /&gt;
12.	Data analysis&lt;br /&gt;
Describe the processing of raw data (for definition of raw data – see section 2.3.1 [[Generation, recording, handling and archiving of raw data]]​)&lt;br /&gt;
Describe statistical method(s) to be applied for each analysis ([[Statistical analysis]])&lt;br /&gt;
Describe any methods used to assess whether the data met the assumptions of the statistical approach ([[ARRIVE Essential - Statistical methods]])&lt;br /&gt;
13.	Amendments&lt;br /&gt;
Describe what was changed in the original study plan, why, when and by whom&lt;br /&gt;
When amending the study plan, please make sure not to over-write the original version&lt;br /&gt;
Amendments may be saved as documents separate from the original study plan&lt;br /&gt;
14.	References&lt;br /&gt;
If necessary, include references&lt;br /&gt;
15.	Preregistration&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
​EQIPD strongly recommends to pre-register study (experimental) plans (more information – [[Preregistration]])&lt;br /&gt;
If pre-registered, please indicate the platform used, registration link and other relevant reference information&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Warning Symbol small2.png RISK ASSESSMENT&lt;br /&gt;
If study plan references to other protocols or dociuments (e.g. protocol for a specific experimental method), is the reference made to the current (relevant) version)?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C. Resources&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Template to create a study plan based on the above guidance - 2.1.1 Study plan.docx, 2.1.1 Study plan with macro.docm&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Experimental design tools:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
MANILA (Matched Animal Analysis): link to the original article (here) and the tool (here)&lt;br /&gt;
NC3Rs’ Experimental Design Assistant - www.eda.nc3rs.org.uk&lt;br /&gt;
​&lt;br /&gt;
----------------&lt;br /&gt;
back to toolbox&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Next item: [[Unique study ID]]​&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>B.gerlach</name></author>
		
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.go-eqipd.org/index.php?title=2.1.1_Study_protocol&amp;diff=67</id>
		<title>2.1.1 Study protocol</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.go-eqipd.org/index.php?title=2.1.1_Study_protocol&amp;diff=67"/>
		<updated>2020-09-01T13:02:39Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;B.gerlach: Created page with &amp;quot;== ​​​​​​​​​​​​​A. Background &amp;amp; Definitions ==  Within the EQIPD Quality System and the Toolbox, the term &amp;quot;Study plan&amp;quot; refers to a document that is u...&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== ​​​​​​​​​​​​​A. Background &amp;amp; Definitions ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Within the EQIPD Quality System and the Toolbox, the term &amp;quot;Study plan&amp;quot; refers to a document that is used to describe and summarize information related to a specific study (experiment). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A single study plan may contain references to one or more research methods and assays.  For protocols for specific research protocols and assays, please refer to item 3.5.2 [[Protocols for methods and assays]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== B. Guidance &amp;amp; Expectations ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is strongly recommended that, for every study (experiment), there is a study plan prepared prior to the study being conducted. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each study plan should identify author(s), date when it was created and a unique ID of the study that it describes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
EQIPD has developed a template (please see below) that outlines the suggested structure and content of a Study Plan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This template is provided as a general guidance and serves only as an example:&lt;br /&gt;
# Title of the study&lt;br /&gt;
# Study hypothesis&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Purpose of research]] (see section 2.1.4 for comments and further guidance)&lt;br /&gt;
** ​Indicate whether the research is undertaken with the intention to inform a formal knowledge claim &lt;br /&gt;
# Choice of experimental model(s) or method(s)&lt;br /&gt;
** Describe how and why specific models and/or methods were chosen (e.g. based on [[Appraisal of literature and systematic reviews]] - see section 2.1.3 for comments and further guidance).&lt;br /&gt;
** If animal subjects are involved, justify why alternative are not suitable; as well as the selection of species, strain, age, and sex (if applicable) &lt;br /&gt;
# Choice of controls&lt;br /&gt;
** Describe the controls (negative, positive, shams), why and how these were chosen (e.g. based on [[Appraisal of literature and systematic reviews]] - see section 2.1.3 for comments and further guidance).&lt;br /&gt;
** If a positive control is included, indicate explicitly how the study outcome will be interpreted if positive control fails.&lt;br /&gt;
# Measures against risks of bias&lt;br /&gt;
Randomization (if selected, a [[Randomisation]] protocol must be available - see section 2.1.8 for comments and further guidance)&lt;br /&gt;
Blinding (if selected, a [[Blinding]] protocol must be available - see section 2.1.7 for comments and further guidance)&lt;br /&gt;
If randomization and/or blinding are not applied, please describe the reasons as well as any other measures to control the risks of bias that will be applied.&lt;br /&gt;
7.	Sample size&lt;br /&gt;
Describe methods used to estimate the sample size (such as power analysis).&lt;br /&gt;
For definitions and guidance on [[Sample size and power analysis]] - see section 2.1.6 for comments and further guidance.&lt;br /&gt;
Specify the primary outcome measure that was used to determine the sample size (see [[ARRIVE Essential - Outcome measures]])&lt;br /&gt;
The sample size is the number of experimental units per group (for definition of experimental unit – see [[ARRIVE Essential - Study design]])&lt;br /&gt;
​Specify the exact number of experimental units allocated to each group, and the total number in each experiment.&lt;br /&gt;
For definitions and guidance on sample size estimation and power analysis, please follow the link.&lt;br /&gt;
8.	Inclusion and exclusion criteria&lt;br /&gt;
Indicate any [[Inclusion and exclusion criteria]] to be applied (for further information - see section 2.1.9 for comments and further guidance)&lt;br /&gt;
9.	Animal resources, reagents and materials&lt;br /&gt;
​Include a detailed description of reagents and materials and/or provide references to separate document(s) with the relevant information (e.g. if you chose to use section 3.3.3 of the Dossier for [[Management of research materials and reagents]])&lt;br /&gt;
If animals are used, provide sufficient details expected for reporting ([[ARRIVE 2.0]]&lt;br /&gt;
10.	Study design overview&lt;br /&gt;
​For complex study designs, include a visual representation that more easily interpreted than a text description (e.g. a timeline diagram, table or flow chart – e.g. using an Experimental Design Assistant).&lt;br /&gt;
Include a detailed description of methods and experimental procedures and/or provide references to separate document(s) with the relevant information (e.g. if you chose to use section 3.5.2 of the Dossier for storing [[Protocols for methods and assays]])11.&lt;br /&gt;
11.	Experimental procedures&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Include a detailed description of methods and experimental procedures and/or provide references to separate document(s) with the relevant information (e.g. if you chose to use section 3.5.2 of the Dossier for storing [[Protocols for methods and assays]])&lt;br /&gt;
If experimental methods are not described in separate documents, follow [[ARRIVE 2.0]] Recommended Set suggestions (items 14-17 here as well as guidance provided here)&lt;br /&gt;
If more than one method or procedure is used, describe sequence or experimental workflow&lt;br /&gt;
For each experimental group, including controls, describe the procedures in enough detail to allow others to replicate them, including (more guidance - [[ARRIVE Essential - Experimental procedures]])&lt;br /&gt;
What was done, how it was done and what was used&lt;br /&gt;
When and how often&lt;br /&gt;
Where (including detail of any acclimation periods)&lt;br /&gt;
Why (provide rationale for procedures)&lt;br /&gt;
12.	Data analysis&lt;br /&gt;
Describe the processing of raw data (for definition of raw data – see section 2.3.1 [[Generation, recording, handling and archiving of raw data]]​)&lt;br /&gt;
Describe statistical method(s) to be applied for each analysis ([[Statistical analysis]])&lt;br /&gt;
Describe any methods used to assess whether the data met the assumptions of the statistical approach ([[ARRIVE Essential - Statistical methods]])&lt;br /&gt;
13.	Amendments&lt;br /&gt;
Describe what was changed in the original study plan, why, when and by whom&lt;br /&gt;
When amending the study plan, please make sure not to over-write the original version&lt;br /&gt;
Amendments may be saved as documents separate from the original study plan&lt;br /&gt;
14.	References&lt;br /&gt;
If necessary, include references&lt;br /&gt;
15.	Preregistration&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
​EQIPD strongly recommends to pre-register study (experimental) plans (more information – [[Preregistration]])&lt;br /&gt;
If pre-registered, please indicate the platform used, registration link and other relevant reference information&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Warning Symbol small2.png RISK ASSESSMENT&lt;br /&gt;
If study plan references to other protocols or dociuments (e.g. protocol for a specific experimental method), is the reference made to the current (relevant) version)?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C. Resources&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Template to create a study plan based on the above guidance - 2.1.1 Study plan.docx, 2.1.1 Study plan with macro.docm&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Experimental design tools:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
MANILA (Matched Animal Analysis): link to the original article (here) and the tool (here)&lt;br /&gt;
NC3Rs’ Experimental Design Assistant - www.eda.nc3rs.org.uk&lt;br /&gt;
​&lt;br /&gt;
----------------&lt;br /&gt;
back to toolbox&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Next item: [[Unique study ID]]​&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>B.gerlach</name></author>
		
	</entry>
</feed>