Reporting of interventional clinical trial results in an academic center: a survey of completed studies

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-024-02221-6

2024-04-23

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Abstract:The dissemination of clinical trial results is an important scientific and ethical endeavour. This survey of completed interventional studies in a French academic center describes their reporting status.

health care sciences & services

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Ethical and legal considerations in non interventional health clinical trials in the French context

S Leymarie,C Bahans,M Paltoglou,C Demiot

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conctc.2022.100955

2022-07-02

Abstract:While the development of regulations in the conduct of research in humans, has better allowed risks and associated contraints to be framed, it has also raised further questions. French regulations currently consider that research based on questionnaires or interviews has no impact on the care of patients or on the individual, a view that is too limited and is not shared by the ethics committees charged with the protection of those involved in studies. Any research relating to a person requires his or her active involvement. The intention of the researcher can be perceived by the participant and can therefore affect their responses. Hence, it is important to question the safety of procedures and consider the psychological risks of non-interventional research. Any evaluation process can create a potentially risky situation, not because of the intrinsic qualities of the tools used, but because of the conditions under which they are applied. As members of an ethics committee, our experience has enabled us to observe shortcomings and lack of acknowledgement by study sponsors of issues at stake in the research. This article revisits the foundational texts of the French Jardé law, with which sponsors and investigators in France are required to comply, considers the psychological implications for studies involving questionnaires and/or interviews and ethical questions or dilemmas. Finally, areas for consideration that could improve the framework for non-interventional research are proposed.
Clinical research projects at a German medical faculty: follow-up from ethical approval to publication and citation by others

A Blümle,G Antes,M Schumacher,H Just,E von Elm,A Blumle

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2008.024521

2008-09-01

Journal of Medical Ethics

Abstract:BACKGROUND: Only data of published study results are available to the scientific community for further use such as informing future research and synthesis of available evidence. If study results are reported selectively, reporting bias and distortion of summarised estimates of effect or harm of treatments can occur. The publication and citation of results of clinical research conducted in Germany was studied.METHODS: The protocols of clinical research projects submitted to the research ethics committee of the University of Freiburg (Germany) in 2000 were analysed. Published full articles in several databases were searched and investigators contacted. Data on study and publication characteristics were extracted from protocols and corresponding publications.RESULTS: 299 study protocols were included. The most frequent study design was randomised controlled trial (141; 47%), followed by uncontrolled studies (61; 20%), laboratory studies (30; 10%) and non-randomised studies (29; 10%). 182 (61%) were multicentre studies including 97 (53%) international collaborations. 152 of 299 (51%) had commercial (co-)funding and 46 (15%) non-commercial funding. 109 of the 225 completed protocols corresponded to at least one full publication (total 210 articles); the publication rate was 48%. 168 of 210 identified publications (80%) were cited in articles indexed in the ISI Web of Science. The median was 11 citations per publication (range 0-1151).CONCLUSIONS: Results of German clinical research projects conducted are largely underreported. Barriers to successful publication need to be identified and appropriate measures taken. Close monitoring of projects until publication and adequate support provided to investigators may help remedy the prevailing underreporting of research.

ethics,medical ethics,social issues,social sciences, biomedical
Reporting and interpretation of results from clinical trials that did not claim a treatment difference: survey of four general medical journals

Simon Gates,Elizabeth Ealing

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024785

IF: 3.006

2019-09-01

BMJ Open

Abstract:Objectives To describe and summarise how the results of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that did not find a significant treatment effect are reported, and to estimate how commonly trial reports make unwarranted claims. Design We performed a retrospective survey of published RCTs, published in four high impact factor general medical journals between June 2016 and June 2017. Setting Trials conducted in all settings were included. Participants 94 reports of RCTs that did not find a difference in their main comparison or comparisons were included. Interventions All interventions. Primary and secondary outcomes We recorded the way the results of each trial for its primary outcome or outcomes were described in Results and Conclusions sections of the Abstract, using a 10-category classification. Other outcomes were whether confidence intervals (CIs) and p values were presented for the main treatment comparisons, and whether the results and conclusions referred to measures of uncertainty. We estimated the proportion of papers that made claims that were not justified by the results, or were open to multiple interpretations. Results 94 trial reports (120 treatment comparisons) were included. In Results sections, for 58/120 comparisons (48.3%) the results of the study were re-stated, without interpretation, and 38/120 (31.7%) stated that there was no statistically significant difference. In Conclusions, 65/120 treatment comparisons (54.2%) stated that there was no treatment benefit, 14/120 (11.7%) that there was no significant benefit and 16/120 (13.3%) that there was no significant difference. CIs and p values were both presented by 84% of studies (79/94), but only 3/94 studies referred to uncertainty when drawing conclusions. Conclusions The majority of trials (54.2%) inappropriately interpreted a result that was not statistically significant as indicating no treatment benefit. Very few studies interpreted the result as indicating a lack of evidence against the null hypothesis of zero difference between the trial arms.

medicine, general & internal
Neurointerventional surveys between 2000 and 2023: a systematic review

Salome Lou Bosshart,Alexander Stebner,Charlotte Sabine Weyland,Răzvan Alexandru Radu,Johanna Maria Ospel,EYMINT research and survey committee

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/jnis-2024-022298

2024-10-08

Abstract:Background: Surveys are increasingly used in neurointervention to gauge physicians' and patients' attitudes, practice patterns, and 'real-world' treatment strategies, particularly in conditions for which few, or no evidence-based, recommendations exist. While survey-based studies can provide valuable insights into real-world problems and management strategies, there is an inherent risk of bias. Objective: To assess key themes, sample characteristics, response metrics, and report frequencies of quality indicators of neurointerventional surveys. Methods: A systematic review compliant with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline was performed. The PubMed database was searched for neurointerventional surveys published between 2000 and 2023. Survey topics, design, respondent characteristics, and survey quality criteria suggested by the Consensus-Based Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies (CROSS) were assessed and described using descriptive statistics. Response rates and numbers of participants were further assessed for their dependence on sample characteristics and survey methodologies. Results: A total of 122 surveys were included in this analysis. The number of surveys published each year increased steeply between 2000 (n=1) and 2023 (n=14). The most common survey topics were stroke (51/122, 41.8%) and aneurysm treatment (49/122, 40.2%). The median response rate was 58.5% (IQR=30.4-86.3), with a median number of respondents of 79 (IQR=50-201). Sixty-eight of 122 (55.7%) surveys published the questionnaire used for data collection. Only a subset of studies reported response rates (n=89, 73%), data collection time period (n=91, 74.6%), and strategies to prevent duplicate responses (n=57, 46.7%). Conclusion: Surveys are increasingly used by neurointerventional researchers, particularly to assess real-world practice patterns in endovascular stroke and aneurysm treatment. Adapting best-practice guidelines like the CROSS checklist might improve homogeneity and quality in neurointerventional survey research.
Clinical-trial reporting is on the rise

Inga Vesper

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-03317-1

IF: 64.8

2024-10-17

Nature

Abstract:Although some countries have made marked strides in reporting trial results, others still face a long road ahead. Although some countries have made marked strides in reporting trial results, others still face a long road ahead.

multidisciplinary sciences
The carbon footprint of clinical trials: a global survey on the status quo and current regulatory guidance

Jean-Marc Hoffmann,Annina Bauer,Regina Grossmann

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2023-012754

IF: 8.056

2023-09-01

BMJ Global Health

Abstract:Introduction All economic sectors including the service sector, along with healthcare, education and research, need to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to limit global temperature increases. In this study, we aim to globally assess the awareness and current actions taken by Academic Research Institutions (ARIs) or governments regarding the reduction of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO 2 e) emissions for clinical research. Methods We designed a cross-sectional survey-based study, which was distributed within the International Clinical Trials Center Network (ICN). The survey population comprised representatives of the ICN who had extensive experience in academic clinical research and profound knowledge and understanding of the local context. Results The response rate was 80%. Responding ARIs were from 15 different countries and 4 continents. Around half of the ARIs reported that almost none of their research projects considered reducing their carbon footprint. The other half of the ARIs were not familiar with this subject at all. According to 60% of the respondents, greenhouse gas emissions are not assessed by Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)/Ethics Committees (ECs) or competent authorities, while 40% did not know. Neither IRBs/ECs nor competent authorities currently advise sponsors and investigators on reducing the carbon footprint of their clinical research projects. As for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in clinical research, virtual conferences and meetings were the most commonly implemented measures by ARIs across all regions. Finally, we have put together an action plan/checklist advising researchers on carbon footprint reduction for clinical trials. Conclusion Currently, greenhouse gas emissions are neglected during the planning phase of a research project, and they are not yet addressed or assessed by default during the approval procedures by IRBs/ECs or competent authorities. Thus, all involved stakeholders within clinical research need to be made aware of it through advice from ARIs and IRBs/ECs, among others.

public, environmental & occupational health
Overcoming publication and dissemination bias in infectious diseases clinical trials

Martin P Grobusch,Claire Ruiz Del Portal Luyten,Benjamin J Visser,Hanna K de Jong,Abraham Goorhuis,Thomas Hanscheid

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(23)00455-3

Abstract:Non-timely reporting, selective reporting, or non-reporting of clinical trial results are prevalent and serious issues. WHO mandates that summary results be available in registries within 12 months of study completion and published in full text within 24 months. However, only a limited number of clinical trials in infectious diseases, including those done during the COVID-19 pandemic, have their results posted on ClinicalTrials.gov. An analysis of 50 trials of eight antiviral drugs tested against COVID-19 with a completion date of at least 2 years ago revealed that only 18% had their results published in the registry, with 40% not publishing any results. Non-timely and non-reporting practices undermine patient participation and are ethically unacceptable. Strategies should include obligatory reporting of summary results within 12 months in clinical trial registries, with progress towards peer-reviewed publication within 24 months indicated. Timely publication of research papers should be encouraged through an automated flagging mechanism in clinical trial registries that draws attention to the status of results reporting, such as a green tick for trials that have reported summary results within 12 months and a red tick in case of failure to do so. We propose the inclusion of mandatory clinical trial reporting standards in the International Conference on Harmonization Good Clinical Practice guidelines, which should prohibit sponsor contract clauses that restrict reporting (referred to as gag clauses) and require timely reporting of results as part of the ethics committees' clearance process for clinical trial protocols.
Assessing the reporting quality of pediatric neuro-oncology protocols, abstracts, and trials: Adherence to the SPIRIT and CONSORT statements

Joshua S Suppree,Sophia Hart,Sumirat M Keshwara,Sandhya Trichinopoly Krishna,Conor S Gillespie,George E Richardson,Mohammad A Mustafa,Conor L Mallucci,Barry Pizer,James Hayden,Abdurrahman I Islim,Michael D Jenkinson,Christopher P Millward

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/nop/npae042

2024-05-11

Abstract:Background: It is of vital importance to comprehensively and transparently report clinical trial activity. The SPIRIT 2013 and CONSORT 2010 statements exist to define items to be reported in clinical trial protocols and randomized controlled trials, respectively. The aim of this methodological review was to assess the reporting quality of pediatric neuro-oncology trial protocols and trial result articles. Methods: Published trial protocols and phase II/III trial result articles relating to pediatric brain tumors (published after the introduction of the SPIRIT 2013 statement), were identified through searches of 4 electronic bibliographic databases. The reporting quality of included trial protocols and result articles was assessed against the aforementioned statements. In addition, the CONSORT-A checklist was used to assess the abstracts of trial result articles. Percentage adherence was calculated for each article. Results: Nine trial protocols, 68 phase II trials, and 8 phase III trial result articles were included. Mean adherence of trial protocols to the SPIRIT statement was 76.8% (SD: 0.09). Mean adherence of trial abstracts to CONSORT-A was 67.4% (SD: 0.13) for phase II abstracts and 47.5% (SD: 0.09) for phase III abstracts. Adherence of trial result articles to CONSORT was 71.3% (SD: 0.10) for phase II trials and 70.3% (SD: 0.13) for phase III trials. Conclusions: The reporting quality of pediatric neuro-oncology trial protocols and trial result articles requires improvement, particularly in the areas of randomization and blinding. This is consistent with our previously published findings following similar assessment of reporting quality for adult neuro-oncology trial protocols and result articles.
Quality of reporting of modern randomized controlled trials in medical oncology: a systematic review

Julien Péron,Gregory R Pond,Hui K Gan,Eric X Chen,Roula Almufti,Denis Maillet,Benoit You

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djs259

2012-07-03

Abstract:Background: The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines were developed in the mid-1990s for the explicit purpose of improving clinical trial reporting. However, there is little information regarding the adherence to CONSORT guidelines of recent publications of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in oncology. Methods: All phase III RCTs published between 2005 and 2009 were reviewed using an 18-point overall quality score for reporting based on the 2001 CONSORT statement. Multivariable linear regression was used to identify features associated with improved reporting quality. To provide baseline data for future evaluations of reporting quality, RCTs were also assessed according to the 2010 revised CONSORT statement. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: A total of 357 RCTs were reviewed. The mean 2001 overall quality score was 13.4 on a scale of 0-18, whereas the mean 2010 overall quality score was 19.3 on a scale of 0-27. The overall RCT reporting quality score improved by 0.21 points per year from 2005 to 2009. Poorly reported items included method used to generate the random allocation (adequately reported in 29% of trials), whether and how blinding was applied (41%), method of allocation concealment (51%), and participant flow (59%). High impact factor (IF, P = .003), recent publication date (P = .008), and geographic origin of RCTs (P = .003) were independent factors statistically significantly associated with higher reporting quality in a multivariable regression model. Sample size, tumor type, and positivity of trial results were not associated with higher reporting quality, whereas funding source and treatment type had a borderline statistically significant impact. Conclusion: The results show that numerous items remained unreported for many trials. Thus, given the potential impact of poorly reported trials, oncology journals should require even stricter adherence to the CONSORT guidelines.
Improving clinical trial transparency at UK universities: Evaluating 3 years of policies and reporting performance on the European Clinical Trial Register

Sarai Mirjam Keestra,Florence Rodgers,Sophie Gepp,Peter Grabitz,Till Bruckner

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/17407745211071015

2022-02-16

Clinical Trials

Abstract:Background: January 2019, the House of Commons’ Science and Technology Committee sent letters to UK universities admonishing them to achieve compliance with results reporting requirements for Clinical Trials of Investigative Medicinal Products by summer 2019. This study documents changes in the clinical trial policies and Clinical Trials of Investigative Medicinal Product reporting performance of 20 major UK universities following that intervention. Methods: Freedom of Information requests were filed in June 2018 and June 2020 to obtain clinical trial registration and reporting policies covering both Clinical Trials of Investigative Medicinal Products and all other clinical trials. Two independent reviewers assessed policies against transparency benchmarks based on World Health Organization best practices. To evaluate universities’ trial reporting performance, we used a public online tracking tool, the European Union Trials Tracker, which assesses universities’ compliance with regulatory Clinical Trials of Investigative Medicinal Product disclosure requirements on the European Clinical Trial Register. Specifically, we evaluated whether universities were adhering to the European Union requirement to post summary results on the trial registry within 12 months of completion. Results: Mean policy strength increased from 2.8 to 4.9 points (out of a maximum of 7 points) between June 2018 and June 2020. In October 2018 the average percentage of due Clinical Trials of Investigative Medicinal Products that had results available on the European trial registry across university sponsors included in the cohort was 29%. By June 2021, this had increased to 91%, with 5 universities achieving a reporting performance of 100%. All 20 universities reported more than 70% of their due trial results on the European trial registry. Interpretation: Political pressure appears to have a significant positive impact on UK universities’ clinical trial reporting policies and performance. Similar approaches could be used to improve reporting performance for other types of sponsors, other types of trials, and in other countries.

medicine, research & experimental
Accessibility of clinical study reports supporting medicine approvals: a cross-sectional evaluation

Ashley M. Hopkins,Natansh D. Modi,Frank W. Rockhold,Tammy Hoffmann,Bradley D. Menz,Areti-Angeliki Veroniki,Ross A. McKinnon,Andrew Rowland,Sandra M. Swain,Joseph S. Ross,Michael J. Sorich

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111263

IF: 7.407

2024-02-08

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Abstract:Objectives Clinical study reports (CSRs) are highly detailed documents that play a pivotal role in medicine approval processes. Though not historically publicly available, in recent years, major entities including the European Medicines Agency (EMA), Health Canada, and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have highlighted the importance of CSR accessibility. The primary objective herein was to determine the proportion of CSRs that support medicine approvals available for public download as well as the proportion eligible for independent researcher request via the study sponsor. Study Design and Setting This cross-sectional study examined the accessibility of CSRs from industry-sponsored clinical trials whose results were reported in the FDA-authorized drug labels of the top 30 highest-revenue medicines of 2021. We determined (1) whether the CSRs were available for download from a public repository, and (2) whether the CSRs were eligible for request by independent researchers based on trial sponsors' data sharing policies. Results There were 316 industry-sponsored clinical trials with results presented in the FDA-authorized drug labels of the 30 sampled medicines. Of these trials, CSRs were available for public download from 70 (22%), with 37 available at EMA and 40 at Health Canada repositories. While pharmaceutical company platforms offered no direct downloads of CSRs, sponsors confirmed that CSRs from 183 (58%) of the 316 clinical trials were eligible for independent researcher request via the submission of a research proposal. Overall, 218 (69%) of the sampled clinical trials had CSRs available for public download and/or were eligible for request from the trial sponsor. Conclusion CSRs were available from 69% of the clinical trials supporting regulatory approval of the 30 medicines sampled. However, only 22% of the CSRs were directly downloadable from regulatory agencies, the remaining required a formal application process to request access to the CSR from the study sponsor.

public, environmental & occupational health,health care sciences & services
Barriers to research findings utilization amongst critical care nurses and allied health professionals: An international survey

Laurent Poiroux,Arnaud Bruyneel,Lionel Larcin,Guillaume Fossat,Toufik Kamel,Guylaine Labro,Suzanne Goursaud,Anahita Rouze,Nicholas Heming,Bertrand Hermann,for the SRLF trial group

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iccn.2023.103610

IF: 5.3

2024-01-05

Intensive and Critical Care Nursing

Abstract:Objectives To determine the perceived barriers to the implementation of research findings in clinical practice among critical care nurses and allied health professionals. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted using an online questionnaire sent to critical care nurses and allied health professionals in French-speaking countries. The primary objective was the identification and grading of perceived barriers to implementation of research findings into clinical practice, using a previously validated tool (French version of the BARRIERS scale). The scale is divided into 4 dimensions, each containing 6 to 7 questions to be answered using a 4-point Likert scale (1: no barrier, 4: great barrier). Descriptive statistics were performed and weighted score per dimensions were compared. Univariate and multivariate linear regressions were performed to identify factors associated with the total score by dimension. Results A total of 994 nurses and allied health professionals (85.1 % of ICU nurses) from 5 countries (71.8 % from France) responded to the survey. Main reported barriers to research findings utilization were "Statistical analyses are not understandable" (54.5 %), "Research articles are not readily available" (54.3 %), and "Implications for practice are not made clear" (54.2 %). Weighted scores differed between dimensions, with the "communication" and "organization" dimensions being the greatest barriers (median [IQR]: 2.3 [1.8–2.7] and 2.0 [1.6–2.4], while the "adopter" and "innovation" dimensions having lower scores (1.5 [1.2–1.8] and 1.5 [1.0–1.8] (all pairwise comparisons p-value 0.05). Conclusions Accessibility and understanding of research results seem to be the main barriers to research utilization in practice by respondents. A large number of the reported barriers could be overcome through education and organizational change. Implications for practice Promoting a research culture among nurses and allied health professionals is an issue that needs investment. This should include training in critical reading of scientific articles and statistics.

nursing
Reporting of harms in oncological clinical study reports submitted to the European Medicines Agency compared to trial registries and publications—a methodological review

Asger S. Paludan-Müller,Perrine Créquit,Isabelle Boutron

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-021-01955-0

IF: 9.3

2021-04-08

BMC Medicine

Abstract:Abstract Background An accurate and comprehensive assessment of harms is a fundamental part of an accurate weighing of benefits and harms of an intervention when making treatment decisions; however, harms are known to be underreported in journal publications. Therefore, we sought to compare the completeness of reporting of harm data, discrepancies in harm data reported, and the delay to access results of oncological clinical trials between three sources: clinical study reports (CSRs), clinical trial registries and journal publications. Methods We used the EMA clinical data website to identify all trials submitted to the EMA between 2015 and 2018. We retrieved all CSRs and included all phase II, II/III or III randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing targeted therapy and immunotherapy for cancer. We then identified related records in clinical trial registries and journals. We extracted harms data for eight pre-specified variables and determined the completeness of reporting of harm data in each of the three sources. Results We identified 42 RCTs evaluating 13 different drugs. Results were available on the EMA website in CSRs for 37 (88%) RCTs, ClinicalTrials.gov for 36 (86%), the European Clinical Trials Register (EUCTR) for 20 (48%) and in journal publications for 32 (76%). Harms reporting was more complete in CSRs than other sources. We identified marked discrepancies in harms data between sources, e.g. the number of patients discontinuing due to adverse events differed in CSRs and clinical trial registers for 88% of trials with data in both sources. For CSRs and publications, the corresponding number was 90%. The median (interquartile range) delay between the primary trial completion date and access to results was 4.34 (3.09–7.22) years for CSRs, 2.94 (1.16–4.52) years for ClinicalTrials.gov, 5.39 (4.18–7.33) years for EUCTR and 2.15 (0.64–5.04) years for publications. Conclusions Harms of recently approved oncological drugs were reported more frequently and in more detail in CSRs than in trial registries and journal publications. Systematic reviews seeking to address harms of oncological treatments should ideally use CSRs as the primary source of data; however, due to problems with access, this is currently not feasible.

medicine, general & internal
Institutional dashboards on clinical trial transparency for University Medical Centers: A case study

Delwen L Franzen,Benjamin Gregory Carlisle,Maia Salholz-Hillel,Nico Riedel,Daniel Strech

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1004175

2023-03-21

Abstract:Background: University Medical Centers (UMCs) must do their part for clinical trial transparency by fostering practices such as prospective registration, timely results reporting, and open access. However, research institutions are often unaware of their performance on these practices. Baseline assessments of these practices would highlight where there is room for change and empower UMCs to support improvement. We performed a status quo analysis of established clinical trial registration and reporting practices at German UMCs and developed a dashboard to communicate these baseline assessments with UMC leadership and the wider research community. Methods and findings: We developed and applied a semiautomated approach to assess adherence to established transparency practices in a cohort of interventional trials and associated results publications. Trials were registered in ClinicalTrials.gov or the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS), led by a German UMC, and reported as complete between 2009 and 2017. To assess adherence to transparency practices, we identified results publications associated to trials and applied automated methods at the level of registry data (e.g., prospective registration) and publications (e.g., open access). We also obtained summary results reporting rates of due trials registered in the EU Clinical Trials Register (EUCTR) and conducted at German UMCs from the EU Trials Tracker. We developed an interactive dashboard to display these results across all UMCs and at the level of single UMCs. Our study included and assessed 2,895 interventional trials led by 35 German UMCs. Across all UMCs, prospective registration increased from 33% (n = 58/178) to 75% (n = 144/193) for trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov and from 0% (n = 0/44) to 79% (n = 19/24) for trials registered in DRKS over the period considered. Of trials with a results publication, 38% (n = 714/1,895) reported the trial registration number in the publication abstract. In turn, 58% (n = 861/1,493) of trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov and 23% (n = 111/474) of trials registered in DRKS linked the publication in the registration. In contrast to recent increases in summary results reporting of drug trials in the EUCTR, 8% (n = 191/2,253) and 3% (n = 20/642) of due trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov and DRKS, respectively, had summary results in the registry. Across trial completion years, timely results reporting (within 2 years of trial completion) as a manuscript publication or as summary results was 41% (n = 1,198/2,892). The proportion of openly accessible trial publications steadily increased from 42% (n = 16/38) to 74% (n = 72/97) over the period considered. A limitation of this study is that some of the methods used to assess the transparency practices in this dashboard rely on registry data being accurate and up-to-date. Conclusions: In this study, we observed that it is feasible to assess and inform individual UMCs on their performance on clinical trial transparency in a reproducible and publicly accessible way. Beyond helping institutions assess how they perform in relation to mandates or their institutional policy, the dashboard may inform interventions to increase the uptake of clinical transparency practices and serve to evaluate the impact of these interventions.
Compliance with legal requirement to report clinical trial results on ClinicalTrials.gov: a cohort study

Nicholas J DeVito,Seb Bacon,Ben Goldacre

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)33220-9

2020-02-01

Abstract:Background: Failure to report the results of a clinical trial can distort the evidence base for clinical practice, breaches researchers' ethical obligations to participants, and represents an important source of research waste. The Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act (FDAAA) of 2007 now requires sponsors of applicable trials to report their results directly onto ClinicalTrials.gov within 1 year of completion. The first trials covered by the Final Rule of this act became due to report results in January, 2018. In this cohort study, we set out to assess compliance. Methods: We downloaded data for all registered trials on ClinicalTrials.gov each month from March, 2018, to September, 2019. All cross-sectional analyses in this manuscript were performed on data extracted from ClinicalTrials.gov on Sept 16, 2019; monthly trends analysis used archived data closest to the 15th day of each month from March, 2018, to September, 2019. Our study cohort included all applicable trials due to report results under FDAAA. We excluded all non-applicable trials, those not yet due to report, and those given a certificate allowing for delayed reporting. A trial was considered reported if results had been submitted and were either publicly available, or undergoing quality control review at ClinicalTrials.gov. A trial was considered compliant if these results were submitted within 1 year of the primary completion date, as required by the legislation. We described compliance with the FDAAA 2007 Final Rule, assessed trial characteristics associated with results reporting using logistic regression models, described sponsor-level reporting, examined trends in reporting, and described time-to-report using the Kaplan-Meier method. Findings: 4209 trials were due to report results; 1722 (40·9%; 95% CI 39·4-42·2) did so within the 1-year deadline. 2686 (63·8%; 62·4-65·3) trials had results submitted at any time. Compliance has not improved since July, 2018. Industry sponsors were significantly more likely to be compliant than non-industry, non-US Government sponsors (odds ratio [OR] 3·08 [95% CI 2·52-3·77]), and sponsors running large numbers of trials were significantly more likely to be compliant than smaller sponsors (OR 11·84 [9·36-14·99]). The median delay from primary completion date to submission date was 424 days (95% CI 412-435), 59 days higher than the legal reporting requirement of 1 year. Interpretation: Compliance with the FDAAA 2007 is poor, and not improving. To our knowledge, this is the first study to fully assess compliance with the Final Rule of the FDAAA 2007. Poor compliance is likely to reflect lack of enforcement by regulators. Effective enforcement and action from sponsors is needed; until then, open public audit of compliance for each individual sponsor may help. We will maintain updated compliance data for each individual sponsor and trial at fdaaa.trialstracker.net. Funding: Laura and John Arnold Foundation.
Data-sharing and re-analysis for main studies assessed by the European Medicines Agency—a cross-sectional study on European Public Assessment Reports

Maximilian Siebert,Jeanne Gaba,Alain Renault,Bruno Laviolle,Clara Locher,David Moher,Florian Naudet

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-022-02377-2

IF: 9.3

2022-05-21

BMC Medicine

Abstract:Transparency and reproducibility are expected to be normative practices in clinical trials used for decision-making on marketing authorisations for new medicines. This registered report introduces a cross-sectional study aiming to assess inferential reproducibility for main trials assessed by the European Medicines Agency.

medicine, general & internal
Improving research transparency with individualized report cards: A feasibility study in clinical trials at a large university medical center

Delwen L. Franzen,Maia Salholz-Hillel,Stephanie Müller-Ohlraun,Daniel Strech

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.02.10.24302619

2024-02-23

Abstract:Research transparency is crucial for ensuring the relevance, integrity, and reliability of scientific findings. However, previous work indicates room for improvement across transparency practices. The primary objective of this study was to develop an extensible tool to provide individualized feedback and guidance for improved transparency across phases of a study. Our secondary objective was to assess the feasibility of implementing this tool to improve transparency in clinical trials. We developed study-level “report cards” that combine tailored feedback and guidance to investigators across several transparency practices, including prospective registration, availability of summary results, and open access publication. The report cards were generated through an automated pipeline for scalability. We also developed an infosheet to summarize relevant laws, guidelines, and resources relating to transparency. To assess the feasibility of using these tools to improve transparency, we conducted a single-arm intervention study at Berlin’s university medical center, the Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin. Investigators (n = 92) of 155 clinical trials were sent individualized report cards and the infosheet, and surveyed to assess their perceived usefulness. We also evaluated included trials for improvements in transparency following the intervention. Survey responses indicated general appreciation for the report cards and infosheet, with a majority of participants finding them helpful to build awareness of the transparency of their trial and transparency requirements. However, improvement on transparency practices was minimal and largely limited to linking publications in registries. Investigators also commented on various challenges associated with implementing transparency, including a lack of clarity around best practices and institutional hurdles. This study demonstrates the potential of developing and using tools, such as report cards, to provide individualized feedback at scale to investigators on the transparency of their study. While these tools were positively received by investigators, the limited improvement in transparency practices suggests that awareness alone is likely not sufficient to drive improvement. Future research and implementation efforts may adapt the tools to further practices or research areas, and explore integrated approaches that combine the report cards with incentives and institutional support to effectively strengthen transparency in research.

Medical Ethics
Reporting of ethical approval and informed consent in clinical research published in leading nursing journals: a retrospective observational study

Yanni Wu,Michelle Howarth,Chunlan Zhou,Mingyu Hu,Weilian Cong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-019-0431-5

2019-12-01

BMC Medical Ethics

Abstract:Abstract Background Ethical considerations play a prominent role in the protection of human subjects in clinical research. To date the disclosure of ethical protection in clinical research published in the international nursing journals has not been explored. Our research objective was to investigate the reporting of ethical approval and informed consent in clinical research published in leading international nursing journals. Methods This is a retrospective observational study. All clinical research published in the five leading international nursing journals from the SCI Journal Citation Reports between 2015 and 2017 were retrieved to evaluate for evidence of ethical review. Results A total of 2041 citations have been identified from the contents of all the five leading nursing journals that were published between 2015 and 2017. Out of these, 1284 clinical studies have been included and text relating to ethical review has been extracted. From these, most of prospective clinical studies (87.5%) discussed informed consent. Only half of those (52.9%) reported that written informed consent had been obtained; few (3.6%) reported oral consent, and few (6.8%) used other methods such as online consent or completion and return of data collection (such as surveys) to denote assent. Notably, 36.2% of those did not describe the method used to obtain informed consent and merely described that “ consent was obtained from participants or participants agreed to join in the research ”. Furthermore, whilst most of clinical studies (93.7%) mentioned ethical approval; 92.5% of those stated the name of ethical committee and interestingly, only 37.1% of those mentioned the ethical approval reference. The rates of reporting ethical approval were different between different study type, country, and whether financial support was received (all P < 0.05). Conclusion The reporting of ethics in leading international nursing journals demonstrates progress, but improvement of the transparency and the standard of ethical reporting in nursing clinical research is required.

ethics,medical ethics,social sciences, biomedical
Return of participant-level clinical trial results to participants: pilot of a simplified centralised approach

Eric Hoffman,Suzanne Gaglianone,Rahel Ketema,Wangshu Tu,Holly Peay,Paula Clemens,Utkarsh Dang,Laurie Conklin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-080097

IF: 3.006

2024-03-25

BMJ Open

Abstract:Objectives Public access databases such as clinicaltrials.gov achieve dissemination of clinical trial design and aggregated study results. However, return of participant-level data is rarely done. A key barrier includes the proprietary ownership of data by the sponsor. Additionally, investigators may not have access to centralised data, and per International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) Good Clinical Practice, must maintain the confidentiality of participants. This study piloted an approach to return both individual and aggregate clinical trial data to parents of children participating in a series of open-label clinical trials. Setting and design A small biotech company obtained central ethics approval (centralised institutional review board [IRB], non-exempt). The study was advertised via parent advocacy groups. Parents of trial participants were offered the option to contact an employee (coordinator) within the company, requesting return of their child's study results. Ethics approval covered participation in six countries. The study focused on the sequential clinical trials of vamorolone VBP15-002 (NCT02760264) and VBP15-003 (NCT02760277) (post-results). Interventions Contact initiated by the parent enabled the coordinator to obtain informed consent (and separate General Data Protection Regulations consent), with phone translation when needed. Using date of birth and study site location provided by the parent, the data manager reported the participant number to the coordinator. The coordinator retrieved and compiled data, along with an aggregate summary, which was mailed via a password protected and encrypted memory device to the parent. Prereturn and postreturn surveys were sent to consented parents (n=19; 40% of 48 total trial participants) and investigators. Results Prereturn surveys indicated a request for as much data as offered, in all formats offered. Postreturn survey showed high satisfaction with the process and data returned. Survey of the physician site investigators (n=10; 100% participation of investigators) voiced general satisfaction with the process, with some reservations. Conclusions This pilot study demonstrates an innovative, cost-effective, centralised and labour conservative approach to return of participant-level and aggregate data to participants in studies.

medicine, general & internal
Investigator knowledge, awareness, and registrations of academic clinical trials with the Clinical Trial Registry of India: An observational study

Shruti Bhide,Saurabh Patil,Amitoj Sohal,Neha Kadhe,Renuka Munshi,Chetan Phirke,Snehal Ambre,Sudhir Pawar,Ruchita Patil

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/picr.picr_68_23

2023-01-01

Perspectives in Clinical Research

Abstract:Abstract Introduction: In 2019, the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) introduced the New Drugs and Clinical Trials Rules 2019 (NDCTR), which separated the research guidelines for “Clinical Trials” and “Biomedical and Health Research.” As a result, guidelines issued by Indian Council of Medical Research were stated to apply to academic clinical trials (ACTs). This change is important because academic studies are crucial for scientific advancement and repurposing of approved drugs in health-care industry. However, conducting an ACT can pose challenges. We assessed the level of awareness, knowledge, and challenges faced by investigators. Our aim is to overcome some of these challenges and encourage more academic studies for the betterment of healthcare and scientific knowledge in India. Methodology: The study was conducted in two phases after obtaining approval from the Institutional Ethics Committee (EC) of three tertiary care hospitals in Mumbai. In the first phase, the number of ACTs was assessed from the clinical trial registry India website, while the number of registered and re-registered ECs were assessed from the CDSCO website. The second phase involved assessing investigator awareness and knowledge about ACTs using a prevalidated questionnaire with a content validity index score of 0.93. Results: In 2020, the highest numbers of studies were registered, with the highest numbers of registered and re-registered ECs from Maharashtra. All participants completed the questionnaire and were aware of the need to follow guidelines for clinical trials. Sixty-seven percent of participants knew that the guidelines for ACTs differed from those of sponsored clinical trials, but only 58% were aware of the exact definition of an ACT as per NDCTR, 2019. Eighty-five percent of participants knew who could initiate an ACT, but only 27% knew about the applicability of results of an ACT and 33% had in-depth knowledge about the required approvals, while only 10% knew the archival period. Although 71% of participants had knowledge about serious adverse event reporting, few answered in-depth questions correctly. Only 31 participants reported facing varied challenges. Conclusion: To conduct ACTs effectively and contribute to healthcare and scientific advancement, it is crucial to enhance investigators’ existing knowledge about ACTs.

Reporting of interventional clinical trial results in an academic center: a survey of completed studies

Ethical and legal considerations in non interventional health clinical trials in the French context

Clinical research projects at a German medical faculty: follow-up from ethical approval to publication and citation by others

Reporting and interpretation of results from clinical trials that did not claim a treatment difference: survey of four general medical journals

Neurointerventional surveys between 2000 and 2023: a systematic review

Clinical-trial reporting is on the rise

The carbon footprint of clinical trials: a global survey on the status quo and current regulatory guidance

Overcoming publication and dissemination bias in infectious diseases clinical trials

Assessing the reporting quality of pediatric neuro-oncology protocols, abstracts, and trials: Adherence to the SPIRIT and CONSORT statements

Quality of reporting of modern randomized controlled trials in medical oncology: a systematic review

Improving clinical trial transparency at UK universities: Evaluating 3 years of policies and reporting performance on the European Clinical Trial Register

Accessibility of clinical study reports supporting medicine approvals: a cross-sectional evaluation

Barriers to research findings utilization amongst critical care nurses and allied health professionals: An international survey

Reporting of harms in oncological clinical study reports submitted to the European Medicines Agency compared to trial registries and publications—a methodological review

Institutional dashboards on clinical trial transparency for University Medical Centers: A case study

Compliance with legal requirement to report clinical trial results on ClinicalTrials.gov: a cohort study

Data-sharing and re-analysis for main studies assessed by the European Medicines Agency—a cross-sectional study on European Public Assessment Reports

Improving research transparency with individualized report cards: A feasibility study in clinical trials at a large university medical center

Reporting of ethical approval and informed consent in clinical research published in leading nursing journals: a retrospective observational study

Return of participant-level clinical trial results to participants: pilot of a simplified centralised approach

Investigator knowledge, awareness, and registrations of academic clinical trials with the Clinical Trial Registry of India: An observational study