In India, most principal investigators have run very few trials over the years
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Borah R
PROVIDER: S-EPMC11335508 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the accuracy of principal investigators' (PIs) predictions about three events for their own clinical trials: positivity on trial primary outcomes, successful recruitment and timely trial completion.Study design and settingA short, electronic survey was used to elicit subjective probabilities within seven months of trial registration. When trial results became available, prediction skill was calculated using Brier scores (BS) and compared against uninformative prediction (i.e. predicting 50% all of the time).Results740 PIs returned surveys (16.7% response rate). Predictions on all three events tended to exceed observed event frequency. Averaged PI skill did not surpass uninformative predictions (e.g., BS = 0.25) for primary outcomes (BS = 0.25, 95% CI 0.20, 0.30) and were significantly worse for recruitment and timeline predictions (BS 0.38, 95% CI 0.33, 0.42; BS = 0.52, 95% CI 0.50, 0.55, respectively). PIs showed poor calibration for primary outcome, recruitment, and timelines (calibration index = 0.064, 0.150 and 0.406, respectively), modest discrimination in primary outcome predictions (AUC = 0.76, 95% CI 0.65, 0.85) but minimal discrimination in the other two outcomes (AUC = 0.64, 95% CI 0.57, 0.70; and 0.55, 95% CI 0.47, 0.62, respectively).ConclusionPIs showed overconfidence in favorable outcomes and exhibited limited skill in predicting scientific or operational outcomes for their own trials. They nevertheless showed modest ability to discriminate between positive and non-positive trial outcomes. Low survey response rates may limit generalizability.
| S-EPMC8824379 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10809132 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe NIHR's Associate Principal Investigator (API) Scheme in the United Kingdom was expanded nationally in 2020 with the aim of training clinicians to become Principal Investigators for clinical research in the future. The HEAL-COVID adaptive platform trial is an urgent public health study registered with the API Scheme. Within eighteen months of opening, the trial had recruited almost 1200 patients with over 100 active sites. Here we describe our experiences of APIs working on the trial with two broad objectives. Firstly, we aim to explore through qualitative methods the impact that the scheme has had on the APIs' professional development. Secondly, we aim to quantify the impact that the APIs have had on the recruitment of patients into the trial.MethodsThe professional backgrounds of the APIs are described from data from their application forms to the scheme. The HEAL-COVID API Network is described from records of the monthly meetings. The APIs' experiences are reviewed from data from the NIHR exit surveys at 6 months and from a reflective practice exercise at the final network meeting. Data of patient recruitment to HEAL-COVID was analysed for centres with and without APIs via a multivariate analysis.ResultsForty-two APIs were registered with the HEAL-COVID trial with a diversity of backgrounds in terms of gender, country, profession, grade and specialty. Eleven monthly network meetings took place with the dual objectives of facilitating trial activity and providing educational content. Fourteen APIs completed the NIHR survey with all reporting Good Clinical Practice completion, local promotional activity of the trial, patient recruitment and support from their respective PI. Sites with at least one API recruited over 3.5 times more patients than sites without an API (medians 4 vs 14.5, p < 0.05), independent of factors including type of hospital or number of inpatient beds.DiscussionThis study adds to the growing literature that the NIHR's API Scheme is effective in meeting its objectives in providing research training to clinicians, thus building a workforce of future clinical researchers. Moreover, data from the HEAL-COVID trial shows that sites with an API are associated with higher recruitment. Overall, registering a trial with the API Scheme not only trains future clinical researchers, but it is also likely to increase the number of patients recruited (amongst other benefits), increasing the efficiency of trials and improving access for patients.
| S-EPMC10821510 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Summary Globally, the need to enhance the diversity of trial participants is receiving increasingly urgent attention. We wanted to know whether trials run in India had adequately sampled the country's enormous ethnic diversity. We accessed the Clinical Trials Registry-India website to determine whether each interventional drug or biologic Phase 2 or 3 study, registered in a recent five-year period had run in each of six geographic zones. As regards Phase 3 trials conducted only in India, 61.4% ran in a single zone and just 6.8% were conducted in all six zones. Multinational Phase 3 trials had a better distribution since 3.6% had run in just one zone and 7.1% in all six. India's diverse ethnic groups are underrepresented in the majority of trials covered in this study. A trial that is conducted on non-representative groups and later discovered to be harmful or ineffective in parts of the population, is unethical. We propose various remedial steps.
| S-EPMC10442962 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Data Access Committee EGAC00001001751
| EGAC00001001751 | EGA
Project description:ImportanceEarly-stage and established investigators compete for a limited supply of funds from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Regardless of their previous funding success, many principal investigators (PIs) encounter a funding gap in which they no longer receive ongoing funding from the NIH.ObjectiveTo determine incidence rates of PI-level funding gaps, the mean funding gap length, and whether these 2 metrics are associated with previous funding success.Design, setting, and participantsThis study was conducted using data from NIH RePORTER. Historical datafiles for fiscal year (FY) 2011 to FY 2021 were aggregated to generate 2 master datafiles for this period: all NIH awards and only R01 awards. PIs with no funding in FY 2011 or FY 2021 were removed. PIs were sorted by FY 2011 total funding amounts and grouped by quarter of amount.ResultsA total of 39 944 unique researchers were awarded 220 131 NIH awards, of which 103 753 were R01 awards. For all NIH awards, there was an overall linear increase from top quarter to bottom quarter in the percentage of PIs who had at least 1 year without funding (from 27% to 75%), percentage of these gap PIs who had at least 2 consecutive years without funding (from 56% to 68%), and mean maximum consecutive years without funding for gap PIs (2.2 years to 3.1 years). For only R01 awards, there was an overall linear increase from top quarter to bottom quarter in the percentage of PIs who had at least 1 year without funding (50% to 74%), percentage of gap PIs who had at least 2 consecutive years without funding (59% to 71%), and mean maximum consecutive years without funding for gap PIs (2.4 years to 3.1 years).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study of NIH-funded investigators, PIs with higher NIH funding were less likely to experience a funding gap. Additionally, when these PIs encountered a funding gap, this period without funding was shorter; however, among all PIs, funding gaps typically lasted 2 to 3 years. These associations were found inclusive of all NIH awards and when analysis was limited to only R01 awards. These findings may be useful to PIs and academic institutions as they prepare, structure, and project research resource allocations.
| S-EPMC10509726 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7595267 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Data Access Committee EGAC00001000953
| EGAC00001000953 | EGA
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess principal investigators' and study coordinators' views and experiences regarding community consultation in a multicenter trial of prehospital treatment for status epilepticus conducted under an exception from informed consent for research in emergency settings.MethodsPrincipal investigators and study coordinators at all 17 hubs for the Rapid Anticonvulsant Medication Prior to Arrival Trial (RAMPART) were invited to complete a web-based survey regarding community consultation at their site for RAMPART. Major domains included 1) perceived goals of community consultation, 2) experiences with and views of community consultation methods used, 3) interactions with IRB regarding community consultation, and 4) general satisfaction and lessons learned. Descriptive statistics were tabulated for Likert scale data; relevant themes were reported for text-based data.ResultsTwenty-eight individuals (16 coordinators and 12 investigators) representing all 17 RAMPART hubs completed the survey. Respondents considered multiple community consultation goals to be important, with least support for the role of community consultation in altering study design. All sites used multiple methods (median = 5). The most widely used, and generally favored, method was attending previously scheduled meetings of existing groups. Respondents expressed frustration with low attendance and responsiveness at open public meetings.ConclusionsCoordinators and investigators in this trial viewed community consultation efforts as successful but reported real challenges generating public interest. Individuals with the condition under study were found to be more engaged and supportive of the trial. Respondents endorsed numerous potential goals of the community consultation process and often combined methods to achieve these goals.
| S-EPMC4247989 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Principal investigators (PIs) play a key role in clinical research, and must thus understand the role of clinical research support staff to conduct successful and appropriate clinical research. This study evaluates clinical research capabilities by examining the clinical research knowledge of PIs and clinical research support staff. The participants of this cross-sectional study were academic researchers and clinical research support staff from Japanese universities and research institutions. The participants comprised of 54 respondents, among whom 36 were PIs (physicians) and 18 were clinical research support staff. A self-administered electronic survey was created and evaluated by experts, with 50 knowledge items. Mann-Whitney U tests were used to determine the significance of the differences in knowledge between clinical research support staff and PIs. We compared the correct answer rate of clinical research support staff and PIs for each knowledge category and observed that the clinical research support staff scored significantly higher than the PIs in all aspects of clinical research knowledge sections, including total score. Our findings showed that PIs did not have the same amount of clinical research knowledge as the clinical research support staff. Clinical research knowledge is essential for investigators, especially PIs, to protect patients and promote medical breakthroughs. Thus, more accessible clinical research education and mandatory knowledge testing will allow PIs to lead successful clinical research and further the level of medical research in Japan.
| S-EPMC10014686 | biostudies-literature