scholarly journals Professional medical writing support and the quality, ethics and timeliness of clinical trial reporting: a systematic review

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Obaro Evuarherhe ◽  
William Gattrell ◽  
Richard White ◽  
Christopher Charles Winchester
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Medical Writing ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Medical Publication ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Relationship

Background: Many authors choose to work with professional medical writers when reporting the results of clinical trials. We conducted a systematic review to examine the relationship between professional medical writing support (PMWS) and the quality, ethics and timeliness of publications reporting clinical trials. Methods: Using terms related to medical writer and observational study, we searched MEDLINE and Embase (no date limits), as well as abstracts and posters from meetings of the International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP; 2014-2017). We also hand-searched the journals Medical Writing and The Write Stuff (2014-2017), and the bibliographies of studies identified in the electronic searches. We screened the results to identify studies that compared the quality, ethics and timeliness of clinical trial publications written with and without declared PMWS. Results: Our searches identified 97 potentially relevant studies, of which 89 were excluded during screening and full paper review. The remaining eight studies compared 849 publications with PMWS with 2073 articles developed without such support. In these eight studies, PMWS was shown to be associated with: increased adherence to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines (in 3/3 studies in which this was assessed); publication in journals with an impact factor (one study); a higher quality of written English (one study); and a lower likelihood of reporting non-pre-specified outcomes (one study). PMWS was not associated with increased adherence to CONSORT for Abstracts guidelines (one study) or with the impact of published articles (mean number of citations per year, mean number of article views per year and Altmetric score; one study). In studies that assessed timeliness of publication, PMWS was associated with a reduced time from last patient visit in clinical trials to primary publication (one study), whereas time from submission to acceptance showed inconsistent results (two studies). Conclusions: This systematic review of eight observational studies suggests that PMWS increases the overall quality of reporting of clinical trials and may improve the timeliness of publication.

METHODOLOGICAL QUALITY OF ECONOMIC EVALUATIONS ALONGSIDE TRIALS OF KNEE PHYSIOTHERAPY

2017 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 454-462 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lidia García-Pérez ◽  
Renata Linertová ◽  
Alejandro Arvelo-Martín ◽  
Carolina Guerra-Marrero ◽  
Carlos Enrique Martínez-Alberto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Evaluation Studies ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Evidence Database

Objectives:The methodological quality of an economic evaluation performed alongside a clinical trial can be underestimated if the paper does not report key methodological features. This study discusses methodological assessment issues on the example of a systematic review on cost-effectiveness of physiotherapy for knee osteoarthritis.Methods:Six economic evaluation studies included in the systematic review and related clinical trials were assessed using the 10-question check-list by Drummond and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale.Results:All economic evaluations were performed alongside a clinical trial but the studied interventions were too heterogeneous to be synthesized. Methodological quality of the economic evaluations reported in the papers was not free of drawbacks, and in some cases, it improved when information from the related clinical trial was taken into account.Conclusions:Economic evaluation papers dedicate little space to methodological features of related clinical trials; therefore, the methodological quality can be underestimated if evaluated separately from the trials. Future economic evaluations should follow more strictly the recommendations about methodology and the authors should pay special attention to the quality of reporting.

scholarly journals Impact of patient and public involvement on enrolment and retention in clinical trials: systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ ◽  
2018 ◽  
pp. k4738 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanna C Crocker ◽  
Ignacio Ricci-Cabello ◽  
Adwoa Parker ◽  
Jennifer A Hirst ◽  
Alan Chant ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Lived Experience ◽  
Odds Ratio ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Retention Rates ◽  
The Impact

AbstractObjectiveTo investigate the impact of patient and public involvement (PPI) on rates of enrolment and retention in clinical trials and explore how this varies with the context and nature of PPI.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesTen electronic databases, including Medline, INVOLVE Evidence Library, and clinical trial registries.Eligibility criteriaExperimental and observational studies quantitatively evaluating the impact of a PPI intervention, compared with no intervention or non-PPI intervention(s), on participant enrolment and/or retention rates in a clinical trial or trials. PPI interventions could include additional non-PPI components inseparable from the PPI (for example, other stakeholder involvement).Data extraction and analysisTwo independent reviewers extracted data on enrolment and retention rates, as well as on the context and characteristics of PPI intervention, and assessed risk of bias. Random effects meta-analyses were used to determine the average effect of PPI interventions on enrolment and retention in clinical trials: main analysis including randomised studies only, secondary analysis adding non-randomised studies, and several exploratory subgroup and sensitivity analyses.Results26 studies were included in the review; 19 were eligible for enrolment meta-analysis and five for retention meta-analysis. Various PPI interventions were identified with different degrees of involvement, different numbers and types of people involved, and input at different stages of the trial process. On average, PPI interventions modestly but significantly increased the odds of participant enrolment in the main analysis (odds ratio 1.16, 95% confidence interval and prediction interval 1.01 to 1.34). Non-PPI components of interventions may have contributed to this effect. In exploratory subgroup analyses, the involvement of people with lived experience of the condition under study was significantly associated with improved enrolment (odds ratio 3.14v1.07; P=0.02). The findings for retention were inconclusive owing to the paucity of eligible studies (odds ratio 1.16, 95% confidence interval 0.33 to 4.14), for main analysis).ConclusionsThese findings add weight to the case for PPI in clinical trials by indicating that it is likely to improve enrolment of participants, especially if it includes people with lived experience of the health condition under study. Further research is needed to assess which types of PPI work best in particular contexts, the cost effectiveness of PPI, the impact of PPI at earlier stages of trial design, and the impact of PPI interventions specifically targeting retention.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42016043808.

scholarly journals The impact of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data from clinical trials: a systematic review and critical analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Samantha Cruz Rivera ◽  
Derek G. Kyte ◽  
Olalekan Lee Aiyegbusi ◽  
Anita L. Slade ◽  
Christel McMullan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
Real World ◽  
Clinical Trial Data ◽  
Research Impact ◽  
Trial Data ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are commonly collected in clinical trials and should provide impactful evidence on the effect of interventions on patient symptoms and quality of life. However, it is unclear how PRO impact is currently realised in practice. In addition, the different types of impact associated with PRO trial results, their barriers and facilitators, and appropriate impact metrics are not well defined. Therefore, our objectives were: i) to determine the range of potential impacts from PRO clinical trial data, ii) identify potential PRO impact metrics and iii) identify barriers/facilitators to maximising PRO impact; and iv) to examine real-world evidence of PRO trial data impact based on Research Excellence Framework (REF) impact case studies. Methods Two independent investigators searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL+, HMIC databases from inception until December 2018. Articles were eligible if they discussed research impact in the context of PRO clinical trial data. In addition, the REF 2014 database was systematically searched. REF impact case studies were included if they incorporated PRO data in a clinical trial. Results Thirty-nine publications of eleven thousand four hundred eighty screened met the inclusion criteria. Nine types of PRO trial impact were identified; the most frequent of which centred around PRO data informing clinical decision-making. The included publications identified several barriers and facilitators around PRO trial design, conduct, analysis and report that can hinder or promote the impact of PRO trial data. Sixty-nine out of two hundred nine screened REF 2014 case studies were included. 12 (17%) REF case studies led to demonstrable impact including changes to international guidelines; national guidelines; influencing cost-effectiveness analysis; and influencing drug approvals. Conclusions PRO trial data may potentially lead to a range of benefits for patients and society, which can be measured through appropriate impact metrics. However, in practice there is relatively limited evidence demonstrating directly attributable and indirect real world PRO-related research impact. In part, this is due to the wider challenges of measuring the impact of research and PRO-specific issues around design, conduct, analysis and reporting. Adherence to guidelines and multi-stakeholder collaboration is essential to maximise the use of PRO trial data, facilitate impact and minimise research waste. Trial registration Systematic Review registration PROSPERO CRD42017067799.

scholarly journals Methodological Characteristics of Clinical Trials: Impact of Mandatory Trial Registration

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 ◽  
pp. 131-141
Author(s):  
Ashish Kumar Kakkar ◽  
Biswa Mohan Padhy ◽  
Sudhir Chandra Sarangi ◽  
Yogendra Kumar Gupta
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Statistical Methods ◽  
Quality Characteristics ◽  
Allocation Concealment ◽  
Trial Registration ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Study Protocols ◽  
The Impact

Purpose: Numerous studies across multiple specialties have evaluated the impact of trial registration on quality of study reports and found significant improvements over several domains. However, the impact of mandatory trial registration on the quality of clinical trial protocols remains hitherto unexplored. Methods: We carried out a retrospective cohort study of clinical trial applications submitted to drug regulatory authority of India for initial review with the objective of comparing methodological characteristics of their protocols. Since trial registration was made mandatory in the country in June 2009, we selected two study periods as between January 2007 to May 2009 (Period I) and July 2009 to December 2011 (Period II). Seventy-five protocols were randomly selected using a computer-generated list for each study period, making a total of 150 protocols. Data on twelve key methodological characteristics were collected including clearly defined primary outcomes, randomization, blinding, use of control group, statistical methods, handling of withdrawals amongst others. Results: More than 3/4th of the trial applications in the two study periods were for new chemical entities and nearly 90% were pharmaceutical industry sponsored studies. Comparing the period before and after implementation of mandatory trial registration, description of clearly defined trial outcomes improved from nearly 42% to 80% (p<0.001), sample size justifications increased from 38% to 70% (p<0.001) and use of allocation concealment improved from 24% to 49% (p=0.001). Marked improvement was also noted for blinding, description of statistical methods and handling of withdrawals and dropouts. Remaining characteristics did not change significantly between the two study periods. The mean cumulative scores for the study protocols improved significantly from 7± 0.296 in the first period to 8.93± 0.346 (p<0.001) in the second period. Conclusions: Our study found a significant improvement in the methodological quality characteristics of the protocols particularly in elements related to minimization of bias and statistical methods, which could be attributed to mandatory trial registration. Overall, the significant improvement was limited to global clinical trials, and room for improvement was noted for two quality characteristics – proportion of randomized studies and trials adequately describing the generation of allocation sequence.

scholarly journals SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL: The reporting standards of Randomised Clinical Trials in leading medical journals between 2019-2020

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mairead McErlean ◽  
Jack Samways ◽  
Peter Godolphin ◽  
Yang Chen
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Medical Specialty ◽  
Randomised Clinical Trials ◽  
Reporting Standards ◽  
Systematic Review Protocol ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Medical Journals ◽  
Review Protocol

This is a systematic review protocol which outlines the basis and methodology for our intended review which at the time of writing is in the study screening phase. Our aim is to answer the fundamental questions:To systematically identify RCTs published in the four leading medical journals between January 1st 2019 to May 31st 2020.To assess the quality of reporting of such RCTs using the CONSORT 2010 statement.To identify any association with medical specialty or size or type of RCT and the rate of adherence to the CONSORT 2010 statement.

scholarly journals An investigation into the impact and implications of published papers from retracted research: systematic search of affected literature

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (10) ◽  
pp. e031909 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alison Avenell ◽  
Fiona Stewart ◽  
Andrew Grey ◽  
Greg Gamble ◽  
Mark Bolland
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Research Misconduct ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Bibliographic Databases ◽  
Potential Influence ◽  
Relevant Research ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Impact

ObjectiveAnalyses of the impact of a body of clinical trial reports subject to research misconduct have been few. Our objective was to examine the impact on clinically relevant research of a group of researchers’ trial reports (‘affected trial reports’) affected by research misconduct, and whether identification of misconduct invoked a reappraisal.DesignIn 2016, we used five databases and search engines to identify ‘citing publications’, that is, guidelines, systematic and other reviews, and clinical trials citing any of 12 affected trial reports, published 1998–2011, eventually retracted for research misconduct. The affected trial reports were assessed more likely to have had impact because they had hip fracture outcomes and were in journals with impact factor >4. Two authors assessed whether findings of the citing publications would change if the affected trial reports were removed. In 2018, we searched for evidence that the citing publications had undertaken a reassessment as a result of the potential influence of the affected trial reports.ResultsBy 2016 the affected trial reports were cited in 1158 publications, including 68 systematic reviews, meta-analyses, narrative reviews, guidelines and clinical trials. We judged that 13 guidelines, systematic or other reviews would likely change their findings if the affected trial reports were removed, and in another eight it was unclear if findings would change. By 2018, only one of the 68 citing publications, a systematic review, appeared to have undertaken a reassessment, which led to a correction.ConclusionsWe found evidence that this group of affected trial reports distorted the evidence base. Correction of these distortions is slow, uncoordinated and inconsistent. Unless there is a rapid, systematic, coordinated approach by bibliographic databases, authors, journals and publishers to mitigate the impact of known cases of research misconduct, patients, other researchers and their funders may continue to be adversely affected.

scholarly journals Analysis on the influence of the proportion and growth rate of different categories of drug clinical trial research funds on quality improvement in China recently six years

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Liran Chen ◽  
Huafang Chen
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Quality Improvement ◽  
Drug Trials ◽  
Clinical Drug Trials ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Self Examination ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Clinical Drug

Abstract Background: The China food and drug administration (CFDA) issued the Announcement of Self-examination and Inspection of Clinical Drug Trial Data on July 22, 2015. Great changes have taken place since the launch of the most stringent drug registration self-examination and inspection in history; the cost of clinical trials is one of the important changes. Methods: The paper compares the changes in the cost of clinical drug trials on both the number and the structure of the trials 3 years before and 3 years after self-examination and inspection were initiated by the CFDA,analyzes the impact on the cost of the clinical research coordinator ( CRC ), the labor service of researchers, audit companies, institutional drug management and quality control on the quality improvement of clinical drug trials. Conclusions: According to the article, the emergence and increase in most clinical trial costs are conducive to the quality enhancement of clinical drug trials,However, the emergence and continued increase of CRC costs can improve the quality of clinical drug trials in some ways and hinder it in others..To improve the quality of clinical trials, China must regulate the booming site management organization ( SMO ) market and actively formulate industry standards and qualification certifications for CRCs.

Assessment of the quality of reporting in studies of acupuncture for patients with cancer using the STRICTA guidelines

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 223-227
Author(s):  
John G Hughes ◽  
George Lewith ◽  
Hugh MacPherson ◽  
Claudia M Witt ◽  
Mike Cummings ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Feasibility Studies ◽  
Median Number ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Acupuncture Research ◽  
Published Research

Introduction: There has been a burgeoning of research evaluating acupuncture for various symptoms of cancer and the side-effects associated with its treatment. A systematic review was conducted to examine the quality of reporting in published studies of acupuncture in cancer according to the STRICTA (STandards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials of Acupuncture) guidelines. Methods: Systematic review of published research of acupuncture for symptoms of cancer and the side-effects associated with its treatment. Databases searched were: Medline, CINAHL, Cochrane (all databases), Scopus, and PubMed from their inception to December 2014. Clinical trials, pilot/feasibility studies, observational studies, and case studies were included. Only full journal papers published in English were included. The quality of reporting was evaluated using STRICTA guidelines. Each included paper was assessed by two independent reviewers, with disagreements adjudicated by a third reviewer. Results: 88 papers were identified which met the inclusion criteria. The median number of STRICTA items reported in trials with a control or comparator arm (n=47) was 14 out of 17 (range 8 to 17, IQR 4). For studies without a control or comparator arm the median was 11 out of a possible 15 (range 5 to 15, IQR 3). Key weaknesses in reporting included details of other components of treatments, and details of the acupuncturist administering treatments. Conclusions: Despite the widespread use of the STRICTA guidelines in acupuncture research, adherence remains poor for a few specific items. Further research is required to explore the reasons why authors fail to report those items, and to develop strategies to improve the adherence to the guidelines.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document