Sharing Clinical Trial Data: A Proposal From the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors

Moderators of the effect of therapeutic exercise for knee and hip osteoarthritis: a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Many international clinical guidelines recommend therapeutic exercise as a core treatment for knee and hip osteoarthritis. We aimed to identify individual patient-level moderators of the effect of therapeutic exercise for reducing pain and improving physical function in people with knee osteoarthritis, hip osteoarthritis, or both.

METHODS

We did a systematic review and individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials comparing therapeutic exercise with non-exercise controls in people with knee osteoathritis, hip osteoarthritis, or both. We searched ten databases from March 1, 2012, to Feb 25, 2019, for randomised controlled trials comparing the effects of exercise with non-exercise or other exercise controls on pain and physical function outcomes among people with knee osteoarthritis, hip osteoarthritis, or both. IPD were requested from leads of all eligible randomised controlled trials. 12 potential moderators of interest were explored to ascertain whether they were associated with short-term (12 weeks), medium-term (6 months), and long-term (12 months) effects of exercise on self-reported pain and physical function, in comparison with non-exercise controls. Overall intervention effects were also summarised. This study is prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42017054049).

FINDINGS

Of 91 eligible randomised controlled trials that compared exercise with non-exercise controls, IPD from 31 randomised controlled trials (n=4241 participants) were included in the meta-analysis. Randomised controlled trials included participants with knee osteoarthritis (18 [58%] of 31 trials), hip osteoarthritis (six [19%]), or both (seven [23%]) and tested heterogeneous exercise interventions versus heterogeneous non-exercise controls, with variable risk of bias. Summary meta-analysis results showed that, on average, compared with non-exercise controls, therapeutic exercise reduced pain on a standardised 0-100 scale (with 100 corresponding to worst pain), with a difference of -6·36 points (95% CI -8·45 to -4·27, borrowing of strength [BoS] 10·3%, between-study variance [τ2] 21·6) in the short term, -3·77 points (-5·97 to -1·57, BoS 30·0%, τ2 14·4) in the medium term, and -3·43 points (-5·18 to -1·69, BoS 31·7%, τ2 4·5) in the long term. Therapeutic exercise also improved physical function on a standardised 0-100 scale (with 100 corresponding to worst physical function), with a difference of -4·46 points in the short term (95% CI -5·95 to -2·98, BoS 10·5%, τ2 10·1), -2·71 points in the medium term (-4·63 to -0·78, BoS 33·6%, τ2 11·9), and -3·39 points in the long term (-4·97 to -1·81, BoS 34·1%, τ2 6·4). Baseline pain and physical function moderated the effect of exercise on pain and physical function outcomes. Those with higher self-reported pain and physical function scores at baseline (ie, poorer physical function) generally benefited more than those with lower self-reported pain and physical function scores at baseline, with the evidence most certain in the short term (12 weeks).

INTERPRETATION

There was evidence of a small, positive overall effect of therapeutic exercise on pain and physical function compared with non-exercise controls. However, this effect is of questionable clinical importance, particularly in the medium and long term. As individuals with higher pain severity and poorer physical function at baseline benefited more than those with lower pain severity and better physical function at baseline, targeting individuals with higher levels of osteoarthritis-related pain and disability for therapeutic exercise might be of merit.

FUNDING

Chartered Society of Physiotherapy Charitable Trust and the National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Quality problems of clinical trials in China: evidence from quality related studies

Background

Recently, the quality of clinical trials conducted in China has made considerable progress. However, clinical trials conducted in China still fall below the global average standard. The aim of this systematic review was to assess studies that investigated the quality of clinical trials conducted in China, summarize the issues, and provide suggestions for conducting high-quality clinical trials in China.

Methods

We comprehensively searched studies that investigated the quality of clinical trials conducted in China in the following databases from inception to December 1, 2021: National Knowledge Infrastructure, the Chinese Science and Technology Periodical Database, WanFang Data, China Biology Medicine, PubMed, and Embase. We then analyzed the issues in clinical trial registration, ethics review, implementation, and reporting. SPSS 25.0 software was used for data analysis. The data synthesis was conducted using summary statistics and a narrative format.

Results

A total of 90 studies were analyzed, there were 50 studies with 0–5 citation counts (55.56%), 18 studies with 5–10 citation counts (20%), 9 studies with 10–15 citation counts (10%), and 13 studies with more than 15 citation counts (14.44%). Eight (8.89%) studies were conducted by a supervision department, 38 (42.22%) by organizations with GCP qualification, and 44 (48.89%) by third parties. Additionally, there were some problems in the ethical review process of clinical trials, clinical trial registration process, clinical trial implementation process, and clinical trial reporting process.

Conclusions

The current study shows that the quality problems of clinical trials in China still exist. The reported problems are related to the process of clinical trials, including ethical review, registration, implementation, reporting. Due to the limited quantity and quality of included studies, the conclusions of this study need to be verified by high-quality studies.

Review registration

Not registerated in  PROSPERO.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-022-06281-1.

Practical Considerations and Challenges When Conducting an Individual Participant Data (IPD) Meta-Analysis

This chapter provides a broad overview of the use of individual participant (sometimes referred to as patient) data (IPD ) within meta-analyses, the associated advantages of using IPD in meta-analysis compared to aggregate data, and when IPD should be used in meta-analysis.This chapter also outlines the steps of conducting an IPD meta-analysis, with practical guidance relating to requesting and obtaining IPD for meta-analysis. Challenges that can be associated with conducting an IPD meta-analysis are also discussed, including consideration of availability bias, when a subset of the relevant IPD is not available for meta-analysis.

Potential benefits and burdens of National Institutes of Health and National Institute of Mental Health clinical trial policies

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) have implemented numerous clinical trial policies in recent years. These policies have well-intended goals but concerns of undue burden have been raised by professional societies. This study identified the new and revised NIH and NIMH clinical trial policies from 2005 to 2019 and summarized the publicly-identified potential benefits and burdens of those policies. Five new/revised NIH-wide and four NIMH-only clinical trial policies were identified. Potential benefits were improved identification, review, conduct, and reporting of publicly-funded clinical trials. Potential burdens were loss of researcher time, potential loss of future research funding opportunities for basic behavioral researchers, and researcher confusion resulting from perceived definition overlap between clinical trials and basic science. Future clinical trial policy development may benefit from early engagement of researchers as stakeholders. Policymakers may benefit from publicly incorporating benefit/burden analyses and outcome evaluations into future policy development.

Data Sharing in Biomedical Sciences: A Systematic Review of Incentives

Background: The lack of incentives has been described as the rate-limiting step for data sharing. Currently, the evaluation of scientific productivity by academic institutions and funders has been heavily reliant upon the number of publications and citations, raising questions about the adequacy of such mechanisms to reward data generation and sharing. This article provides a systematic review of the current and proposed incentive mechanisms for researchers in biomedical sciences and discusses their strengths and weaknesses. Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were queried for original research articles, editorials, and opinion articles on incentives for data sharing. Articles were included if they discussed incentive mechanisms for data sharing, were applicable to biomedical sciences, and were written in English. Results: Although coauthorship in return for the sharing of data is common, this might be incompatible with authorship guidelines and raise concerns over the ability of secondary analysts to contest the proposed research methods or conclusions that are drawn. Data publication, citation, and altmetrics have been proposed as alternative routes to credit data generators, which could address these disadvantages. Their primary downsides are that they are not well-established, it is difficult to acquire evidence to support their implementation, and that they could be gamed or give rise to novel forms of research misconduct. Conclusions: Alternative recognition mechanisms need to be more commonly used to generate evidence on their power to stimulate data sharing, and to assess where they fall short. There is ample discussion in policy documents on alternative crediting systems to work toward Open Science, which indicates that that there is an interest in working out more elaborate metascience programs.

A systematic literature review of researchers' and healthcare professionals' attitudes towards the secondary use and sharing of health administrative and clinical trial data

A systematic literature review of researchers and healthcare professionals' attitudes towards the secondary use and sharing of health administrative and clinical trial data was conducted using electronic data searching. Eligible articles included those reporting qualitative or quantitative original research and published in English. No restrictions were placed on publication dates, study design, or disease setting. Two authors were involved in all stages of the review process; conflicts were resolved by consensus. Data was extracted independently using a pre-piloted data extraction template. Quality and bias were assessed using the QualSyst criteria for qualitative studies. Eighteen eligible articles were identified, and articles were categorised into four key themes: barriers, facilitators, access, and ownership; 14 subthemes were identified. While respondents were generally supportive of data sharing, concerns were expressed about access to data, data storage infrastructure, and consent. Perceptions of data ownership and acknowledgement, trust, and policy frameworks influenced sharing practice, as did age, discipline, professional focus, and world region. Young researchers were less willing to share data; they were willing to share in circumstances where they were acknowledged. While there is a general consensus that increased data sharing in health is beneficial to the wider scientific community, substantial barriers remain. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018110559.

Data sharing: experience of accessing individual patient data from completed randomised controlled trials in vascular and cognitive medicine

OBJECTIVES

Meta-analysis based on individual patient data (IPD) from randomised trials is superior to using published summary data since it facilitates subgroup and multiple variable analyses. Guidelines and funders expect that researchers share IPD for bona fide analyses, but in practice, this is done variably. Here, we report the experience of obtaining IPD for two collaborative analysis studies.

SETTING

Two linked studies required IPD from published randomised trials. The leading researchers for eligible trials were approached and asked to share IPD including trial characteristics, patient demographics, baseline clinical data and outcome measures.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants in eligible randomised controlled trials included patients with or at risk of cognitive decline/vascular events.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Numbers (%) of trials where the leading researcher responded favourably/negatively or did not respond. If negative, reasons behind the response were collected. If positive, methods used to share IPD were recorded.

RESULTS

Across the two studies, 391 completed trials were identified. Email addresses for researchers were found for 313 (80%) of the trials. One hundred and forty-eight (47%) researchers did not respond despite being sent multiple emails. Following contact, positive initial responses were received from 92 researchers, resulting in IPD being shared for 78 trials. Eighty-seven (28%) researchers declined to share data; justifications were recorded. The median time from first request to accessing data in one study was 241 (IQR 383.3) days. IPD sources included: direct from researcher, via academic trial funders repository and a website requiring remote analysis of commercial data. Where data were shared, a variety of methods were used to transfer data.

CONCLUSION

Sharing of IPD from trials is desirable and a requirement of many funding bodies. However, accessing IPD faces multiple challenges including refusals to share, delays in access to data and having to perform analyses on a remote website.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Not applicable.

Systematic review of participants' attitudes towards data sharing: a thematic synthesis

Objectives Data sharing is well established in biological research, but evidence on sharing of clinical trial or public health research study data remains limited, in particular studies of research participants' perspectives of data sharing. This study systematically reviewed international evidence of research participants' attitudes towards the sharing of data for secondary research use. Methods Systematic search of seven databases, and author-, citation- and bibliography-follow up to identify studies examining research participants' attitudes towards data sharing. Studies were thematically analysed using NVivo v10 to identify recurring themes. Results Nine studies were eligible for inclusion. Thematic analysis identified four key themes: (1) benefits of data sharing, including benefit to participants or immediate community, benefits to the public and benefits to science or research; (2) fears and harms, such as fear of exploitation, stigmatization or repercussions, alongside concerns about confidentiality and misuse of data; (3) data sharing processes, in particular the role of consent in the process; and (4) the relationship between participants and research such as trust in different types of research or organization and the relationship with the original research team. Conclusions The available literature on attitudes towards sharing data from clinical trials or public health interventions remains scant. This study has identified four themes regarding research participants' attitudes and preferences, which should be considered by policy makers, and explored with further research.

Result dissemination from clinical trials conducted at German university medical centers was delayed and incomplete

OBJECTIVES

Timely and comprehensive reporting of clinical trial results builds the backbone of evidence-based medicine and responsible research. The proportion of timely disseminated trial results can inform alternative national and international benchmarking of university medical centers (UMCs).

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

For all German UMCs, we tracked all registered trials completed between 2009 and 2013. The results and an interactive website benchmark German UMCs regarding their performance in result dissemination.

RESULTS

We identified and tracked 2,132 clinical trials. For 1,509 trials, one of the German UMCs took the academic lead. Of these 1,509 "lead trials," 39% published their results (mostly via journal publications) in a timely manner (<24 months after completion). More than 6 years after study completion, 26% of all eligible lead trials still had not disseminated results.

CONCLUSION

Despite substantial attention from many stakeholders to the topic, there is still a strong delay or even absence of result dissemination for many trials. German UMCs have several opportunities to improve this situation. Further research should evaluate whether and how a transparent benchmarking of UMC performance in result dissemination helps to increase value and reduce waste in medical research.

Feasibility, Process, and Outcomes of Cardiovascular Clinical Trial Data Sharing: A Reproduction Analysis of the SMART-AF Trial

Importance

Data sharing is as an expanding initiative for enhancing trust in the clinical research enterprise.

Objective

To evaluate the feasibility, process, and outcomes of a reproduction analysis of the THERMOCOOL SMARTTOUCH Catheter for the Treatment of Symptomatic Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation (SMART-AF) trial using shared clinical trial data.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A reproduction analysis of the SMART-AF trial was performed using the data sets, data dictionary, case report file, and statistical analysis plan from the original trial accessed through the Yale Open Data Access Project using the SAS Clinical Trials Data Transparency platform. SMART-AF was a multicenter, single-arm trial evaluating the effectiveness and safety of an irrigated, contact force-sensing catheter for ablation of drug refractory, symptomatic paroxysmal atrial fibrillation in 172 participants recruited from 21 sites between June 2011 and December 2011. Analysis of the data was conducted between December 2016 and April 2017.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Effectiveness outcomes included freedom from atrial arrhythmias after ablation and proportion of participants without any arrhythmia recurrence over the 12 months of follow-up after a 3-month blanking period. Safety outcomes included major adverse device- or procedure-related events.

Results

The SMART AF trial participants' mean age was 58.7 (10.8) years, and 72% were men. The time from initial proposal submission to final analysis was 11 months. Freedom from atrial arrhythmias at 12 months postprocedure was similar compared with the primary study report (74.0%; 95% CI, 66.0-82.0 vs 76.4%; 95% CI, 68.7-84.1). The reproduction analysis success rate was higher than the primary study report (65.8%; 95% CI 56.5-74.2 vs 75.6%; 95% CI, 67.2-82.5). Adverse events were minimal and similar between the 2 analyses, but contact force range or regression models could not be reproduced.

Conclusions and Relevance

The feasibility of a reproduction analysis of the SMART-AF trial was demonstrated through an academic data-sharing platform. Data sharing can be facilitated through incentivizing collaboration, sharing statistical code, and creating more decentralized data sharing platforms with fewer restrictions to data access.

Predictors of the effects of treatment for shoulder pain: protocol of an individual participant data meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Shoulder pain is one of the most common presentations of musculoskeletal pain with a 1-month population prevalence of between 7 and 26%. The overall prognosis of shoulder pain is highly variable with 40% of patients reporting persistent pain 1 year after consulting their primary care clinician. Despite evidence for prognostic value of a range of patient and disease characteristics, it is not clear whether these factors also predict (moderate) the effect of specific treatments (such as corticosteroid injection, exercise, or surgery).

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to identify predictors of treatment effect (i.e. treatment moderators or effect modifiers) by investigating the association between a number of pre-defined individual-level factors and the effects of commonly used treatments on shoulder pain and disability outcomes.

METHODS

This will be a meta-analysis using individual participant data (IPD). Eligible trials investigating the effectiveness of advice and analgesics, corticosteroid injection, physiotherapy-led exercise, psychological interventions, and/or surgical treatment in patients with shoulder conditions will be identified from systematic reviews and an updated systematic search for trials, and risk of bias will be assessed. Authors of all eligible trials will be approached for data sharing. Outcomes measured will be shoulder pain and disability, and our previous work has identified candidate predictors. The main analysis will be conducted using hierarchical one-stage IPD meta-analysis models, examining the effect of treatment-predictor interaction on outcome for each of the candidate predictors and describing relevant subgroup effects where significant interaction effects are detected. Random effects will be used to account for clustering and heterogeneity. Sensitivity analyses will be based on (i) exclusion of trials at high risk of bias, (ii) use of restricted cubic splines to model potential non-linear associations for candidate predictors measured on a continuous scale, and (iii) the use of a two-stage IPD meta-analysis framework.

DISCUSSION

Our study will collate, appraise, and synthesise IPD from multiple studies to examine potential predictors of treatment effect in order to assess the potential for better and more efficient targeting of specific treatments for individuals with shoulder pain.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42018088298.

Artificial pancreas treatment for outpatients with type 1 diabetes: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of artificial pancreas treatment in non-pregnant outpatients with type 1 diabetes.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and grey literature up to 2 February 2018.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Randomised controlled trials in non-pregnant outpatients with type 1 diabetes that compared the use of any artificial pancreas system with any type of insulin based treatment. Primary outcome was proportion (%) of time that sensor glucose level was within the near normoglycaemic range (3.9-10 mmol/L). Secondary outcomes included proportion (%) of time that sensor glucose level was above 10 mmol/L or below 3.9 mmol/L, low blood glucose index overnight, mean sensor glucose level, total daily insulin needs, and glycated haemoglobin. The Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool was used to assess study quality.

RESULTS

40 studies (1027 participants with data for 44 comparisons) were included in the meta-analysis. 35 comparisons assessed a single hormone artificial pancreas system, whereas nine comparisons assessed a dual hormone system. Only nine studies were at low risk of bias. Proportion of time in the near normoglycaemic range (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) was significantly higher with artificial pancreas use, both overnight (weighted mean difference 15.15%, 95% confidence interval 12.21% to 18.09%) and over a 24 hour period (9.62%, 7.54% to 11.7%). Artificial pancreas systems had a favourable effect on the proportion of time with sensor glucose level above 10 mmol/L (-8.52%, -11.14% to -5.9%) or below 3.9 mmol/L (-1.49%, -1.86% to -1.11%) over 24 hours, compared with control treatment. Robustness of findings for the primary outcome was verified in sensitivity analyses, by including only trials at low risk of bias (11.64%, 9.1% to 14.18%) or trials under unsupervised, normal living conditions (10.42%, 8.63% to 12.2%). Results were consistent in a subgroup analysis both for single hormone and dual hormone artificial pancreas systems.

CONCLUSIONS

Artificial pancreas systems are an efficacious and safe approach for treating outpatients with type 1 diabetes. The main limitations of current research evidence on artificial pancreas systems are related to inconsistency in outcome reporting, small sample size, and short follow-up duration of individual trials.

Subgrouping and TargetEd Exercise pRogrammes for knee and hip OsteoArthritis (STEER OA): a systematic review update and individual participant data meta-analysis protocol

INTRODUCTION

Knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA) is a leading cause of disability worldwide. Therapeutic exercise is a recommended core treatment for people with knee and hip OA, however, the observed effect sizes for reducing pain and improving physical function are small to moderate. This may be due to insufficient targeting of exercise to subgroups of people who are most likely to respond and/or suboptimal content of exercise programmes. This study aims to identify: (1) subgroups of people with knee and hip OA that do/do not respond to therapeutic exercise and to different types of exercise and (2) mediators of the effect of therapeutic exercise for reducing pain and improving physical function. This will enable optimal targeting and refining the content of future exercise interventions.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Systematic review and individual participant data meta-analyses. A previous comprehensive systematic review will be updated to identify randomised controlled trials that compare the effects of therapeutic exercise for people with knee and hip OA on pain and physical function to a non-exercise control. Lead authors of eligible trials will be invited to share individual participant data. Trial-level and participant-level characteristics (for baseline variables and outcomes) of included studies will be summarised. Meta-analyses will use a two-stage approach, where effect estimates are obtained for each trial and then synthesised using a random effects model (to account for heterogeneity). All analyses will be on an intention-to-treat principle and all summary meta-analysis estimates will be reported as standardised mean differences with 95% CI.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Research ethical or governance approval is exempt as no new data are being collected and no identifiable participant information will be shared. Findings will be disseminated via national and international conferences, publication in peer-reviewed journals and summaries posted on websites accessed by the public and clinicians.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42017054049.

Data Sharing: Convert Challenges into Opportunities

Initiatives for sharing research data are opportunities to increase the pace of knowledge discovery and scientific progress. The reuse of research data has the potential to avoid the duplication of data sets and to bring new views from multiple analysis of the same data set. For example, the study of genomic variations associated with cancer profits from the universal collection of such data and helps in selecting the most appropriate therapy for a specific patient. However, data sharing poses challenges to the scientific community. These challenges are of ethical, cultural, legal, financial, or technical nature. This article reviews the impact that data sharing has in science and society and presents guidelines to improve the efficient sharing of research data.

Trends in the number and the quality of trial protocols involving children submitted to a French Institutional Review Board

Background

There is a great need for high quality clinical research for children. The European Pediatric Regulation aimed to improve the quality of clinical trials in order to increase the availability of treatments for children. The main purpose of this study was to assess the evolution of both the number and the quality of pediatric trial protocols that were submitted to a French Institutional Review Board (IRB00009118) before and after the initiation of the EU Pediatric Regulation.

Methods

All protocols submitted to the IRB00009118 between 2003 and 2014 and conducting research on subjects under eighteen years of age were eligible. The quality of randomized clinical trials was assessed according to the guidelines developed by the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) Network and ranked using the Jadad score.

Results

Out of 622 protocols submitted to the Institutional Review Board (IRB), 21% (133/622) included children. Among these 133 pediatric protocols, the number of submitted pediatric protocols doubled between the two studied periods. From 2003 to 2008, 47 protocols including 21 institutionally sponsored were submitted to the IRB and from 2009 until 2014, 86 protocols including 48 institutionally sponsored were submitted. No significant trend was observed on the quality of RCTs. The overall median score of RCTs on the Jadad scale was high (3.5), 70.0% of protocols had a Jadad score ≥ 3, and 30.0% had a score < 3.

Conclusion

Following the EU Pediatric Regulation, the number of pediatric protocols submitted to the IRB00009118 tends to increase, but no change was noticed regarding their quality.

Impact of Viral Status on Survival in Patients Receiving Sorafenib for Advanced Hepatocellular Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Phase III Trials

Purpose Following the Sorafenib Hepatocellular Carcinoma Assessment Randomized Protocol (SHARP) trial, sorafenib has become the standard of care for patients with advanced unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma, but the relation between survival advantage and disease etiology remains unclear. To address this, we undertook an individual patient data meta-analysis of three large prospective randomized trials in which sorafenib was the control arm. Methods Of a total of 3,256 patients, 1,643 (50%) who received sorafenib were available. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). A Bayesian hierarchical approach for individual patient data meta-analyses was applied using a piecewise exponential model. Results are presented in terms of hazard ratios comparing sorafenib with alternative therapies according to hepatitis C virus (HCV) or hepatitis B virus (HBV) status. Results Hazard ratios show improved OS for sorafenib in patients who are both HBV negative and HCV positive (log [hazard ratio], -0.27; 95% CI, -0.46 to -0.06). Median unadjusted survival is 12.6 (11.15 to 13.8) months for sorafenib and 10.2 (8.88 to 12.2) months for "other" treatments in this subgroup. There was no evidence of improvement in OS for any other patient subgroups defined by HBV and HCV. Results were consistent across all trials with heterogeneity assessed using Cochran's Q statistic. Conclusion There is consistent evidence that the effect of sorafenib on OS is dependent on patients' hepatitis status. There is an improved OS for patients negative for HBV and positive for HCV when treated with sorafenib. There was no evidence of any improvement in OS attributable to sorafenib for patients positive for HBV and negative for HCV.

Federating Heterogeneous Datasets to Enhance Data Sharing and Experiment Reproducibility

Recent studies have demonstrated the difficulties to replicate scientific findings and/or experiments published in past.¹ The effects seen in the replicated experiments were smaller than previously reported. Some of the explanations for these findings include the complexity of the experimental design and the pressure on researches to report positive findings. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) suggests that every study considered for publication must submit a plan to share the de-identified patient data no later than 6 months after publication. There is a growing demand to enhance the management of clinical data, facilitate data sharing across institutions and also to keep track of the data from previous experiments. The ultimate goal is to assure the reproducibility of experiments in the future. This paper describes Shiny-tooth, a web based application created to improve clinical data acquisition during the clinical trial; data federation of such data as well as morphological data derived from medical images; Currently, this application is being used to store clinical data from an osteoarthritis (OA) study. This work is submitted to the SPIE Biomedical Applications in Molecular, Structural, and Functional Imaging conference.

The ethics of reporting all the results of clinical trials

INTRODUCTION OR BACKGROUND

The terms 'publication bias' and 'reporting bias' describe aspects of a phenomenon by which data from trials are not publicized, and so remain inaccessible. This may generate a false impression about the world; but those facts may have important implications for clinical decisions. Thus, the bias may leave patients worse off than they might be.

SOURCES OF DATA

Published journal articles.

AREAS OF AGREEMENT

There is general agreement that the phenomenon happens, and that to the extent that it happens, it is undesirable for moral rather than simply epistemic reasons.

GROWING POINTS

There is a growing demand across the board for data to be better publicized.

AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH

There is room for further work on how protocols requiring that data be publicized might be enforced; should it be statutory, or non-statutory? Who should decide what should be made public? There is also room for work on what it is necessary to share, and on whether and how IP law should be reformed.

[New applications for individual participant data meta-analyses of randomized trials]

Meta-analyses of randomized trials using individual-participant data, which represent the highest level of evidence for the evaluation of a treatment effect, are now used in different contexts in clinical research. This article aims at reviewing some of these new applications. Meta-analyses are increasingly used in economic evaluation, which implies new measure outcomes of the treatment effect, as well as in biomarkers evaluations thanks to their higher statistical power and the possibility to validate findings on independent data. This article also considers the perspectives opened up by new data sources, such as randomized trials registers, and data sharing policies.

Pharmacometrics-based decision tools facilitate mHealth implementation

INTRODUCTION

The healthcare system is experiencing a paradigm shift in delivering its services, evolving from a reactive 'one size-fits-all' structure to a patient-centric model focusing on individualized medicine. This change is driven by scientific progress, including quantitative evaluation and optimization of treatment strategies through pharmacometric approaches, harnessing the power of the digital revolution. Areas covered: This review describes four main steps to apply pharmacometrics-based decision support tools, consisting of validated scientific components, available technical options, consideration of regulatory aspects, and achievement of efficient commercialization. Examples of pharmacometrics-based decision tools that support monitoring of patients and individualization of treatment strategies in neonates, children and adults are presented. Expert commentary: We envision that user-friendly decision support tools will facilitate implementation of mobile health approaches (mHealth) realizing benefits to paediatric and adult patients and their caregivers.

A metadata schema for data objects in clinical research

BACKGROUND

A large number of stakeholders have accepted the need for greater transparency in clinical research and, in the context of various initiatives and systems, have developed a diverse and expanding number of repositories for storing the data and documents created by clinical studies (collectively known as data objects). To make the best use of such resources, we assert that it is also necessary for stakeholders to agree and deploy a simple, consistent metadata scheme.

METHODS

The relevant data objects and their likely storage are described, and the requirements for metadata to support data sharing in clinical research are identified. Issues concerning persistent identifiers, for both studies and data objects, are explored.

RESULTS

A scheme is proposed that is based on the DataCite standard, with extensions to cover the needs of clinical researchers, specifically to provide (a) study identification data, including links to clinical trial registries; (b) data object characteristics and identifiers; and (c) data covering location, ownership and access to the data object. The components of the metadata scheme are described.

CONCLUSIONS

The metadata schema is proposed as a natural extension of a widely agreed standard to fill a gap not tackled by other standards related to clinical research (e.g., Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium, Biomedical Research Integrated Domain Group). The proposal could be integrated with, but is not dependent on, other moves to better structure data in clinical research.

A metadata schema for data objects in clinical research

BACKGROUND

A large number of stakeholders have accepted the need for greater transparency in clinical research and, in the context of various initiatives and systems, have developed a diverse and expanding number of repositories for storing the data and documents created by clinical studies (collectively known as data objects). To make the best use of such resources, we assert that it is also necessary for stakeholders to agree and deploy a simple, consistent metadata scheme.

METHODS

The relevant data objects and their likely storage are described, and the requirements for metadata to support data sharing in clinical research are identified. Issues concerning persistent identifiers, for both studies and data objects, are explored.

RESULTS

A scheme is proposed that is based on the DataCite standard, with extensions to cover the needs of clinical researchers, specifically to provide (a) study identification data, including links to clinical trial registries; (b) data object characteristics and identifiers; and (c) data covering location, ownership and access to the data object. The components of the metadata scheme are described.

CONCLUSIONS

The metadata schema is proposed as a natural extension of a widely agreed standard to fill a gap not tackled by other standards related to clinical research (e.g., Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium, Biomedical Research Integrated Domain Group). The proposal could be integrated with, but is not dependent on, other moves to better structure data in clinical research.

Reproducibility in Computational Neuroscience Models and Simulations

OBJECTIVE

Like all scientific research, computational neuroscience research must be reproducible. Big data science, including simulation research, cannot depend exclusively on journal articles as the method to provide the sharing and transparency required for reproducibility.

METHODS

Ensuring model reproducibility requires the use of multiple standard software practices and tools, including version control, strong commenting and documentation, and code modularity.

RESULTS

Building on these standard practices, model-sharing sites and tools have been developed that fit into several categories: 1) standardized neural simulators; 2) shared computational resources; 3) declarative model descriptors, ontologies, and standardized annotations; and 4) model-sharing repositories and sharing standards.

CONCLUSION

A number of complementary innovations have been proposed to enhance sharing, transparency, and reproducibility. The individual user can be encouraged to make use of version control, commenting, documentation, and modularity in development of models. The community can help by requiring model sharing as a condition of publication and funding.

SIGNIFICANCE

Model management will become increasingly important as multiscale models become larger, more detailed, and correspondingly more difficult to manage by any single investigator or single laboratory. Additional big data management complexity will come as the models become more useful in interpreting experiments, thus increasing the need to ensure clear alignment between modeling data, both parameters and results, and experiment.

Increasing the Impact of Materials in and beyond Bio-Nano Science

This is an exciting time for the field of bio-nano science: enormous progress has been made in recent years, especially in academic research, and materials developed and studied in this area are poised to make a substantial impact in real-world applications. Herein, we discuss ways to leverage the strengths of the field, current limitations, and valuable lessons learned from neighboring fields that can be adopted to accelerate scientific discovery and translational research in bio-nano science. We identify and discuss five interconnected topics: (i) the advantages of cumulative research; (ii) the necessity of aligning projects with research priorities; (iii) the value of transparent science; (iv) the opportunities presented by "dark data"; and (v) the importance of establishing bio-nano standards.

Reporting of Sex Effects by Systematic Reviews on Interventions for Depression, Diabetes, and Chronic Pain

Systematic reviews (SRs) have the potential to contribute uniquely to the evaluation of sex and gender differences (termed "sex effects"). This article describes the reporting of sex effects by SRs on interventions for depression, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and chronic pain conditions (chronic low back pain, knee osteoarthritis, and fibromyalgia). It includes SRs published since 1 October 2009 that evaluate medications, behavioral interventions, exercise, quality improvement, and some condition-specific treatments. The reporting of sex effects by primary randomized, controlled trials is also examined. Of 313 eligible SRs (86 for depression, 159 for type 2 diabetes mellitus, and 68 for chronic pain), few (n = 29) reported sex effects. Most SRs reporting sex effects used metaregression, whereas 9 SRs used subgroup analysis or individual-patient data meta-analysis. The proportion of SRs reporting the sex distribution of primary studies varied from a low of 31% (n = 8) for low back pain to a high of 68% (n = 23) for fibromyalgia. Primary randomized, controlled trials also infrequently reported sex effects, and most lacked an adequate sample size to examine them. Therefore, all SRs should report the proportion of women enrolled in primary studies and evaluate sex effects using appropriate methods whenever power is adequate.

Identifying circulating microRNAs as biomarkers of cardiovascular disease: a systematic review

The aim of the present study is to identify microRNAs (miRs) with high potential to be used as biomarkers in plasma and/or serum to clinically diagnose, or provide accurate prognosis for survival in, patients with atherosclerosis, coronary artery disease, and acute coronary syndrome (ACS). A systematic search of published original research yielded a total of 72 studies. After review of the risk of bias of the published studies, according to Cochrane Collaboration and the QUADUAS Group standards, 19 studies were selected. Overall 52 different miRs were reported. In particular, miR-133a/b (5 studies), miR-208a/b (6 studies), and miR-499 (7 studies) were well studied and found to be significant diagnostic and/or prognostic markers across different cardiovascular disease progression stages. miR-1 and miR-145b are potential biomarkers of ACS; miR-1 with higher sensitivity for all acute myocardial infarction (AMI), and miR-145 for STEMI and worse outcome of AMI. But when miRs were studied across different ACS study populations, patients had varying degrees of coronary stenosis, which was identified as an important confounder that limited the ability to quantitatively pool the study results. The identified miRs were found to regulate endothelial function and angiogenesis (miR-1, miR-133), vascular smooth muscle cell differentiation (miR-133, miR-145), communication between vascular smooth muscle and endothelial cell to stabilize plaques (miR-145), apoptosis (miR-1, miR-133, miR-499), cardiac myocyte differentiation (miR-1, miR-133, miR-145, miR-208, miR-499), and to repress cardiac hypertrophy (miR-133). Their role in these processes may be explained by regulation of shared RNA targets such as cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 1A (or p21), ETS proto-oncogene 1, fascin actin-bundling protein 1, hyperpolarization-activated cyclic nucleotide-gated potassium channel 4, insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor LIM and SH3 protein 1, purine nucleoside phosphorylase, and transgelin 2. These mechanistic data further support the clinical relevance of the identified miRs. miR-1, miR-133a/b, miR-145, miR-208a/b, and miR-499(a) in plasma and/or serum show some potential for diagnosis of cardiovascular disease. However, biased selection of miRs in most studies and unexplained contrasting results are major limitations of current miR research. Inconsistencies need to be addressed in order to definitively identify clinically useful miRs. Therefore, this paper presents important aspects to improve future miR research, including unbiased selection of miRs, standardization/normalization of reference miRs, adjustment for patient comorbidities and medication, and robust protocols of data-sharing plans that could prevent selective publication and selective reporting of miR research outcomes.

Legal and ethical issues in research

Legal and ethical issues form an important component of modern research, related to the subject and researcher. This article seeks to briefly review the various international guidelines and regulations that exist on issues related to informed consent, confidentiality, providing incentives and various forms of research misconduct. Relevant original publications (The Declaration of Helsinki, Belmont Report, Council for International Organisations of Medical Sciences/World Health Organisation International Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects, World Association of Medical Editors Recommendations on Publication Ethics Policies, International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, CoSE White Paper, International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use-Good Clinical Practice) form the literature that are relevant to the ethical and legal aspects of conducting research that researchers should abide by when conducting translational and clinical research. Researchers should note the major international guidelines and regional differences in legislation. Hence, specific ethical advice should be sought at local Ethics Review Committees.