scholarly journals Challenges for funders in monitoring compliance with policies on clinical trials registration and reporting: analysis of funding and registry data in the UK

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. e035283 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel L Knowles ◽  
Kam Pou Ha ◽  
Julia Mueller ◽  
Frances Rawle ◽  
Rosa Parker
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Medical Research ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Monitoring Systems ◽  
Clinical Trial Registry ◽  
Funding Body ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Research Funding Body

ObjectivesTo evaluate compliance by researchers with funder requirements on clinical trial transparency, including identifying key areas for improvement; to assess the completeness, accuracy and suitability for annual compliance monitoring of the data routinely collected by a research funding body.DesignDescriptive analysis of clinical trials funded between February 2011 and January 2017 against funder policy requirements.SettingPublic medical research funding body in the UK.Data sourcesRelevant clinical trials were identified from grant application details, post-award grant monitoring systems and the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) registry.Main outcome measureThe proportion of all Medical Research Council (MRC)-funded clinical trials that were (a) registered in a clinical trial registry and (b) publicly reported summary results within 2 years of completion.ResultsThere were 175 grants awarded that included a clinical trial and all trials were registered in a public trials registry. Of 62 trials completed for over 24 months, 42 (68%) had publicly reported the main findings by 24 months after trial completion; 18 of these achieved this within 12 months of completion. 11 (18%) trials took >24 months to report and 9 (15%) completed trials had not yet reported findings. Five datasets were shared with other researchers.ConclusionsCompliance with the funder policy requirements on trial registration was excellent. Reporting of the main findings was achieved for most trials within 24 months of completion; however, the number of unreported trials remains a concern and should be a focus for future funder policy initiatives. Identifying trials from grant management and grant monitoring systems was challenging therefore funders should ensure investigators reliably provide trial registries with information and regularly update entries with details of trial publications and protocols.

scholarly journals Clinical trial reporting performance of thirty UK universities on ClinicalTrials.gov—evaluation of a new tracking tool for the US clinical trial registry

Trials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarai Mirjam Keestra ◽  
Florence Rodgers ◽  
Daphne Lenz ◽  
Rhiannon Osborne ◽  
Till Bruckner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Median Number ◽  
World Health ◽  
Trial Registry ◽  
Clinical Trial Registry ◽  
Link Type ◽  
The Us ◽  
Health Organization ◽  
The Uk

AbstractClinical trial transparency forms the foundation of evidence-based medicine, and trial sponsors, especially publicly funded institutions such as universities, have an ethical and scientific responsibility to make the results of clinical trials publicly available in a timely fashion. We assessed whether the thirty UK universities receiving the most Medical Research Council funding in 2017–2018 complied with World Health Organization best practices for clinical trial reporting on the US Clinical Trial Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov). Firstly, we developed and evaluated a novel automated tracking tool (clinical-trials-tracker.com) for clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. This tracker identifies the number of due trials (whose completion lies more than 395 days in the past) that have not reported results on the registry and can now be used for all sponsors. Secondly, we used the tracker to determine the number of due clinical trials sponsored by the selected UK universities in October 2020. Thirdly, using the FDAAA Trials Tracker, we identified trials sponsored by these universities that are not complying with reporting requirements under the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act 2007. Finally, we quantified the average and median number of days between primary completion date and results posting. In October 2020, the universities included in our study were sponsoring 1634 due trials, only 1.6% (n = 26) of which had reported results within a year of completion. 89.8% (n = 1468) of trials remained unreported, and 8.6% (n = 140) of trials reported results late. We also identified 687 trials that contained inconsistent data, suggesting that UK universities often fail to update their data adequately on ClinicalTrials.gov. The mean reporting delay after primary completion for trials that posted results was 981 days, the median 728 days. Only four trials by UK universities violated the FDAAA 2007. We suggest a number of reasons for the poor reporting performance of UK universities on ClinicalTrials.gov: (i) efforts to improve clinical trial reporting in the UK have to date focused on the European clinical trial registry (EU CTR), (ii) the absence of a tracking tool for timely reporting on ClinicalTrials.gov has limited the visibility of institutions’ reporting performance on the US registry and (iii) there is currently a lack of repercussions for UK sponsors who fail to report results on ClinicalTrials.gov which should be addressed in the future.

scholarly journals Calling for improved quality in the registration of traditional Chinese medicine during the public health emergency: a survey of trial registries for COVID-19, H1N1, and SARS

Trials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhuoran Kuang ◽  
◽  
Xiaoyan Li ◽  
Jianxiong Cai ◽  
Yaolong Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Chinese Medicine ◽  
Traditional Chinese Medicine ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Specific Information ◽  
Clinical Trial Registry ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Diagnosis Criteria

Abstract Objective To assess the registration quality of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) clinical trials for COVID-19, H1N1, and SARS. Method We searched for clinical trial registrations of TCM in the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR) on April 30, 2020. The registration quality assessment is based on the WHO Trial Registration Data Set (Version 1.3.1) and extra items for TCM information, including TCM background, theoretical origin, specific diagnosis criteria, description of intervention, and outcomes. Results A total of 136 records were examined, including 129 severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (COVID-19) and 7 H1N1 influenza (H1N1) patients. The deficiencies in the registration of TCM clinical trials (CTs) mainly focus on a low percentage reporting detailed information about interventions (46.6%), primary outcome(s) (37.7%), and key secondary outcome(s) (18.4%) and a lack of summary result (0%). For the TCM items, none of the clinical trial registrations reported the TCM background and rationale; only 6.6% provided the TCM diagnosis criteria or a description of the TCM intervention; and 27.9% provided TCM outcome(s). Conclusion Overall, although the number of registrations of TCM CTs increased, the registration quality was low. The registration quality of TCM CTs should be improved by more detailed reporting of interventions and outcomes, TCM-specific information, and sharing of the result data.

scholarly journals Healthcare professionals’ views of the use of oral morphine and transmucosal diamorphine in the management of paediatric breakthrough pain and the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial: A focus group study (DIPPER)

2021 ◽  
pp. 026921632110087
Author(s):  
Liz Jamieson ◽  
Emily Harrop ◽  
Margaret Johnson ◽  
Christina Liossi ◽  
Christine Mott ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Breakthrough Pain ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Oral Morphine ◽  
Oral Route ◽  
Focus Group Study ◽  
Framework Approach ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
The Uk

Background: Oral morphine is frequently used for breakthrough pain but the oral route is not always available and absorption is slow. Transmucosal diamorphine is administered by buccal, sublingual or intranasal routes, and rapidly absorbed. Aim: To explore the perspectives of healthcare professionals in the UK caring for children with life-limiting conditions concerning the assessment and management of breakthrough pain; prescribing and administration of transmucosal diamorphine compared with oral morphine; and the feasibility of a comparative clinical trial. Design/ participants: Three focus groups, analysed using a Framework approach. Doctors, nurses and pharmacists ( n = 28), caring for children with life-limiting illnesses receiving palliative care, participated. Results: Oral morphine is frequently used for breakthrough pain across all settings; with transmucosal diamorphine largely limited to use in hospices or given by community nurses, predominantly buccally. Perceived advantages of oral morphine included confidence in its use with no requirement for specific training; disadvantages included tolerability issues, slow onset, unpredictable response and unsuitability for patients with gastrointestinal failure. Perceived advantages of transmucosal diamorphine were quick onset and easy administration; barriers included lack of licensed preparations and prescribing guidance with fears over accountability of prescribers, and potential issues with availability, preparation and palatability. Factors potentially affecting recruitment to a trial were patient suitability and onerousness for families, trial design and logistics, staff time and clinician engagement. Conclusions: There were perceived advantages to transmucosal diamorphine, but there is a need for access to a safe preparation. A clinical trial would be feasible provided barriers were overcome.

scholarly journals Practical and conceptual issues of clinical trial registration for Brazilian researchers

2015 ◽  
Vol 134 (1) ◽  
pp. 28-33 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carolina Gomes Freitas ◽  
Thomas Fernando Coelho Pesavento ◽  
Maurício Reis Pedrosa ◽  
Rachel Riera ◽  
Maria Regina Torloni
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
International Committee ◽  
New Drugs ◽  
Trial Registration ◽  
Clinical Trial Registry ◽  
Clinical Trial Registration ◽  
Registration Process ◽  
Trial History ◽  
Definition Of

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Clinical trial registration is a prerequisite for publication in respected scientific journals. Recent Brazilian regulations also require registration of some clinical trials in the Brazilian Clinical Trials Registry (ReBEC) but there is little information available about practical issues involved in the registration process. This article discusses the importance of clinical trial registration and the practical issues involved in this process. DESIGN AND SETTING: Descriptive study conducted by researchers within a postgraduate program at a public university in São Paulo, Brazil. METHODS: Information was obtained from clinical trial registry platforms, article reference lists and websites (last search: September 2014) on the following topics: definition of a clinical trial, history, purpose and importance of registry platforms, the information that should be registered and the registration process. RESULTS: Clinical trial registration aims to avoid publication bias and is required by Brazilian journals indexed in LILACS and SciELO and by journals affiliated to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Recent Brazilian regulations require that all clinical trials (phases I to IV) involving new drugs to be marketed in this country must be registered in ReBEC. The pros and cons of using different clinical trial registration platforms are discussed. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical trial registration is important and various mechanisms to enforce its implementation now exist. Researchers should take into account national regulations and publication requirements when choosing the platform on which they will register their trial.

scholarly journals Geographic Disparities In Access To Cancer Clinical Trials In India

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Santam Chakraborty ◽  
Indranil Mallick ◽  
Hung N Luu ◽  
Tapesh Bhattacharyya ◽  
Arunsingh Moses ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Sample Size ◽  
The State ◽  
Cancer Site ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Trial Registry ◽  
Geographic Disparities ◽  
Incident Cancer ◽  
Incident Cases

Abstract Introduction The current study was aimed at quantifying the disparity in geographic access to cancer clinical trials in India. Methods We collated data of cancer clinical trials from the clinical trial registry of India (CTRI) and data on state-wise cancer incidence from the Global Burden of Disease Study. The total sample size for each clinical trial was divided by the trial duration to get the sample size per year. This was then divided by the number of states in which accrual was planned to get the sample size per year per state (SSY). For interventional trials investigating a therapy, the SSY was divided by the number of incident cancers in the state to get the SSY per 1,000 incident cancer cases. The SSY data was then mapped to visualise the geographical disparity.Results We identified 181 ongoing studies, of whom 132 were interventional studies. There was a substantial inter-state disparity - with a median SSY of 1.55 per 1000 incident cancer cases (range 0.00 - 296.81 per 1,000 incident cases) for therapeutic interventional studies. Disparities were starker when cancer site-wise SSY was considered. Even in the state with the highest SSY, only 29.7 % of the newly diagnosed cancer cases have an available slot in a therapeutic cancer clinical trial. Disparities in access were also apparent between academic (range: 0.21 - 226.60) and industry-sponsored trials (range: 0.17 - 70.21).Conclusion There are significant geographic disparities in access to cancer clinical trials in India. Future investigations should evaluate the reasons and mitigation approaches for such disparities.

scholarly journals Effects of daily L-dopa administration on learning and brain structure in older adults undergoing cognitive training: a randomised clinical trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander V. Lebedev ◽  
Jonna Nilsson ◽  
Joanna Lindström ◽  
William Fredborg ◽  
Ulrika Akenine ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Cognitive Training ◽  
Cognitive Aging ◽  
Latent Variables ◽  
Fluid Intelligence ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Basic Research ◽  
Clinical Trial Registry ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Healthy Elderly

AbstractCognitive aging creates major individual and societal burden, motivating search for treatment and preventive care strategies. Behavioural interventions can improve cognitive performance in older age, but effects are small. Basic research has implicated dopaminergic signalling in plasticity. We investigated whether supplementation with the dopamine-precursor L-dopa improves effects of cognitive training on performance. Sixty-three participants for this randomised, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial were recruited via newspaper advertisements. Inclusion criteria were: age of 65–75 years, Mini-Mental State Examination score >25, absence of serious medical conditions. Eligible subjects were randomly allocated to either receive 100/25 mg L-dopa/benserazide (n = 32) or placebo (n = 31) prior to each of twenty cognitive training sessions administered during a four-week period. Participants and staff were blinded to group assignment. Primary outcomes were latent variables of spatial and verbal fluid intelligence. Compared to the placebo group, subjects receiving L-dopa improved less in spatial intelligence (−0.267 SDs; 95%CI [−0.498, −0.036]; p = 0.024). Change in verbal intelligence did not significantly differ between the groups (−0.081 SDs, 95%CI [−0.242, 0.080]; p = 0.323). Subjects receiving L-dopa also progressed slower through the training and the groups displayed differential volumetric changes in the midbrain. No statistically significant differences were found for the secondary cognitive outcomes. Adverse events occurred for 10 (31%) and 7 (23%) participants in the active and control groups, correspondingly. The results speak against early pharmacological interventions in older healthy adults to improve broader cognitive functions by targeting the dopaminergic system and provide no support for learning-enhancing properties of L-dopa supplements in the healthy elderly. The findings warrant closer investigation about the cognitive effects of early dopamine-replacement therapy in neurological disorders. This trial was preregistered at the European Clinical Trial Registry, EudraCT#2016-000891-54 (2016-10-05).

scholarly journals Profiles of COVID-19 clinical trials in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 1695-1701 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peng Xu ◽  
Xiangyu Xing ◽  
Keying Yu ◽  
Zhiguo Lv ◽  
Huijing Cui ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Trial Registry ◽  
Clinical Trial Registry
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document