Publication of Study Exit Procedures in Clinical Trials of Deep Brain Stimulation: A Focused Literature Review.
ABSTRACT: Considerable variability exists in the publication of clinical research study procedures related to study enrollment and participant exit from clinical trials. Despite recent efforts to encourage research data sharing and greater transparency regarding research outcomes, reporting of research procedures remains inconsistent. Transparency about study procedures has important implications for the interpretation of study outcomes and the consistent implementation of best practices in clinical trial design and conduct. This review of publications from clinical trials of deep brain stimulation (DBS) using the MEDLINE database examines the frequency and consistency of publication of research procedures and data related to exit from DBS research. Related considerations, such as device explant or continued use, battery and other device hardware replacements, and post-trial follow-up care are also reviewed. This review finds significant variability in the publication and reporting of study exit procedures. Of the 47 clinical trials included in this review, 19% (9) disclosed procedures related to exit from research. Reporting of other exit-related data and study procedures examined in this review was identified in fewer than half of the included clinical trials. The rate of participant retention and duration of follow-up was reported more than any other category of data included in this review. Results inform efforts to improve consistency in research design, conduct, and publication of results from clinical trials in DBS and related areas of clinical research.
Project description:Research on stem cells (SC) is growing rapidly in neurology, but clinical applications of SC for neurological disorders remain to be proven effective and safe. Human clinical trials need to be registered in registries in order to reduce publication bias and selective reporting.We searched three databases-clinicaltrials.gov, the Clinical Research Information System (CRIS), and PubMed-for neurologically relevant SC-based human trials and articles in Korea. The registration of trials, posting and publication of results, and registration of published SC articles were examined.There were 17 completed trials registered at clinicaltrials.gov and the CRIS website, with results articles having been published for 5 of them. Our study found 16 publications, of which 1 was a review article, 1 was a protocol article, and 8 contained registered trial information.Many registered SC trials related to neurological disorders are not reported, while many SC-related publications are not registered in a public registry. These results support the presence of biased reporting and publication bias in SC trials related to neurological disorders in Korea.
Project description: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; 2014-2018). We also hand-searched the journals Medical Writing and The Write Stuff (2014-2018) 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 is positively associated with measures of overall quality of reporting of clinical trials and may improve the timeliness of publication.
Project description:Needle-related procedures are the most important source of pain in children in hospital setting. Unmanaged pain could result in short- and long-term physiological, psychological, and emotional consequences. Although the efficacy of numerous interventions has been evaluated, procedural pain management is often suboptimal in children undergoing needle-related procedures. The main objective of this systematic review is to examine the evidence for the efficacy of the Buzzy® device for needle-related procedural pain in children.An electronic search will be conducted in the following databases: CENTRAL, PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo, and CINAHL. There will be no restriction regarding the language, date of publication, and publication status. Eligible studies will be randomized controlled trials using the Buzzy® device for pain management in children undergoing needle-related procedures. Selection of studies, data extraction and management, assessment of risk of bias and quality of evidence will be performed by two independent reviewers. A third researcher will be consulted in case of discrepancies. Depending on the availability and quality of the data as well as clinical and statistical heterogeneity, a meta-analysis will be performed. Otherwise, findings will be qualitatively reported.This will be the first systematic review to examine the efficacy of the Buzzy® device on pain management of children during needle-related procedures. Results of this review will guide clinical practice and recommendations for further research to improve procedural pediatric pain management.PROSPERO CRD42017076531.
Project description:Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) represent the gold standard methodological design to evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention in humans but they are subject to bias, including study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. National and international organisations and charities give recommendations for good research practice in relation to RCTs but to date no review of these guidelines has been undertaken with respect to reporting bias.National and international organisations and UK based charities listed on the Association for Medical Research Charities website were contacted in 2007; they were considered eligible for this review if they funded RCTs. Guidelines were obtained and assessed in relation to what was written about trial registration, protocol adherence and trial publication. It was also noted whether any monitoring against these guidelines was undertaken. This information was necessary to discover how much guidance researchers are given on the publication of results, in order to prevent study publication bias and outcome reporting bias.Seventeen organisations and 56 charities were eligible of 140 surveyed for this review, although there was no response from 12. Trial registration, protocol adherence, trial publication and monitoring against the guidelines were often explicitly discussed or implicitly referred too. However, only eleven of these organisations or charities mentioned the publication of negative as well as positive outcomes and just three of the organisations specifically stated that the statistical analysis plan should be strictly adhered to and all changes should be reported.Our review indicates that there is a need to provide more detailed guidance for those conducting and reporting clinical trials to help prevent the selective reporting of results. Statements found in the guidelines generally refer to publication bias rather than outcome reporting bias. Current guidelines need to be updated and include the statement that all primary and secondary outcomes prespecified in the protocol should be fully reported and should not be selected for inclusion in the final report based on their results.
Project description:To study whether systematic reviewers apply procedures to counter-balance some common forms of research malpractice such as not publishing completed research, duplicate publications, or selective reporting of outcomes, and to see whether they identify and report misconduct.Cross-sectional analysis of systematic reviews and survey of their authors.118 systematic reviews published in four journals (Ann Int Med, BMJ, JAMA, Lancet), and the Cochrane Library, in 2013.Number (%) of reviews that applied procedures to reduce the impact of: (1) publication bias (through searching of unpublished trials), (2) selective outcome reporting (by contacting the authors of the original studies), (3) duplicate publications, (4) sponsors' and (5) authors' conflicts of interest, on the conclusions of the review, and (6) looked for ethical approval of the studies. Number (%) of reviewers who suspected misconduct are reported. The procedures applied were compared across journals.80 (68%) reviewers confirmed their data. 59 (50%) reviews applied three or more procedures; 11 (9%) applied none. Unpublished trials were searched in 79 (66%) reviews. Authors of original studies were contacted in 73 (62%). Duplicate publications were searched in 81 (69%). 27 reviews (23%) reported sponsors of the included studies; 6 (5%) analysed their impact on the conclusions of the review. Five reviews (4%) looked at conflicts of interest of study authors; none of them analysed their impact. Three reviews (2.5%) looked at ethical approval of the studies. Seven reviews (6%) suspected misconduct; only 2 (2%) reported it explicitly. Procedures applied differed across the journals.Only half of the systematic reviews applied three or more of the six procedures examined. Sponsors, conflicts of interest of authors and ethical approval remain overlooked. Research misconduct is sometimes identified, but rarely reported. Guidance on when, and how, to report suspected misconduct is needed.
Project description:Abstract Objectives Managing participants and their data are fundamental for the success of a clinical trial. Our review identifies and describes processes that deal with management of trial participants and highlights information technology (IT) assistance for clinical research in the context of participant management. Methods A scoping literature review design, based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement, was used to identify literature on trial participant-related proceedings, work procedures, or workflows, and assisting electronic systems. Results The literature search identified 1329 articles of which 111 were included for analysis. Participant-related procedures were categorized into 4 major trial processes: recruitment, obtaining informed consent, managing identities, and managing administrative data. Our results demonstrated that management of trial participants is considered in nearly every step of clinical trials, and that IT was successfully introduced to all participant-related areas of a clinical trial to facilitate processes. Discussion There is no precise definition of participant management, so a broad search strategy was necessary, resulting in a high number of articles that had to be excluded. Nevertheless, this review provides a comprehensive overview of participant management-related components, which was lacking so far. The review contributes to a better understanding of how computer-assisted management of participants in clinical trials is possible.
Project description:Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is currently in pivotal trials as an intervention for treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Although offering hope for TRD, DBS also provokes ethical concerns-particularly about decision-making capacity of people with depression-among bioethicists, investigators, institutional review boards, and the public. Here, we examine this critical issue of informed consent for DBS research using available evidence regarding decision-making capacity and depression. Further, we explore the implications of the nature of TRD as well as that of the intervention (invasive brain surgery) for informed consent. Based on these analyses, we argue that additional safeguards specific to DBS research for TRD, beyond those that might be used in any higher risk study, are not supported by available empirical evidence. We nevertheless underscore the limited data on such invasive procedures in severely ill psychiatric patients and advocate a research agenda for the systematic study of ethical issues raised by these research endeavors.
Project description:To assess the impact of the 2004 extension of the CONSORT guidelines on the reporting and methodological quality of cluster randomised trials.Methodological review of 300 randomly sampled cluster randomised trials. Two reviewers independently abstracted 14 criteria related to quality of reporting and four methodological criteria specific to cluster randomised trials. We compared manuscripts published before CONSORT (2000-4) with those published after CONSORT (2005-8). We also investigated differences by journal impact factor, type of journal, and trial setting.A validated Medline search strategy. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Cluster randomised trials published in English language journals, 2000-8.There were significant improvements in five of 14 reporting criteria: identification as cluster randomised; justification for cluster randomisation; reporting whether outcome assessments were blind; reporting the number of clusters randomised; and reporting the number of clusters lost to follow-up. No significant improvements were found in adherence to methodological criteria. Trials conducted in clinical rather than non-clinical settings and studies published in medical journals with higher impact factor or general medical journals were more likely to adhere to recommended reporting and methodological criteria overall, but there was no evidence that improvements after publication of the CONSORT extension for cluster trials were more likely in trials conducted in clinical settings nor in trials published in either general medical journals or in higher impact factor journals.The quality of reporting of cluster randomised trials improved in only a few aspects since the publication of the extension of CONSORT for cluster randomised trials, and no improvements at all were observed in essential methodological features. Overall, the adherence to reporting and methodological guidelines for cluster randomised trials remains suboptimal, and further efforts are needed to improve both reporting and methodology.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Publication and related biases (including publication bias, time-lag bias, outcome reporting bias and p-hacking) have been well documented in clinical research, but relatively little is known about their presence and extent in health services research (HSR). This paper aims to systematically review evidence concerning publication and related bias in quantitative HSR. METHODS:Databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, HMIC, CINAHL, Web of Science, Health Systems Evidence, Cochrane EPOC Review Group and several websites were searched to July 2018. Information was obtained from: (1) Methodological studies that set out to investigate publication and related biases in HSR; (2) Systematic reviews of HSR topics which examined such biases as part of the review process. Relevant information was extracted from included studies by one reviewer and checked by another. Studies were appraised according to commonly accepted scientific principles due to lack of suitable checklists. Data were synthesised narratively. RESULTS:After screening 6155 citations, four methodological studies investigating publication bias in HSR and 184 systematic reviews of HSR topics (including three comparing published with unpublished evidence) were examined. Evidence suggestive of publication bias was reported in some of the methodological studies, but evidence presented was very weak, limited in both quality and scope. Reliable data on outcome reporting bias and p-hacking were scant. HSR systematic reviews in which published literature was compared with unpublished evidence found significant differences in the estimated intervention effects or association in some but not all cases. CONCLUSIONS:Methodological research on publication and related biases in HSR is sparse. Evidence from available literature suggests that such biases may exist in HSR but their scale and impact are difficult to estimate for various reasons discussed in this paper. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO 2016 CRD42016052333.
Project description:Over the past two decades, aspirin has emerged as a promising chemoprotective agent to prevent colorectal cancer (CRC). In 2016, the mounting evidence supporting its chemoprotective effect, from both basic science and clinical research, led the US Preventive Services Task Force to recommend regular use of low-dose aspirin in some subgroups of patients for whom the benefits are deemed to outweigh the risks. In contrast, data on the chemoprotective effect of aspirin against other cancers are less clear and remain controversial. Most data come from secondary analyses of cardiovascular prevention trials, with only a limited number reporting cancer outcomes as a prespecified endpoint, and overall unclear findings. Moreover, the potential chemoprotective effect of aspirin against other cancers has been recently questioned with the publication of 3 long-awaited trials of aspirin in the primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases reporting no benefit of aspirin on overall cancer incidence and cancer-related mortality. Data on the chemoprotective effects of other antiplatelet agents remain scarce and inconclusive, and further research to examine their benefit are warranted. In this narrative review, we summarize current clinical evidence and continuing controversies on the potential chemoprotective properties of antiplatelet agents against cancer.