Are research ethics committees behaving unethically? Some suggestions for improving performance and accountability

Institutional Review Boards and post-approval monitoring (PAM) of human research: content analysis of select university (academic health center) web pages across the USA

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a content analysis of IRB webpages of select universities (academic health centers) in the USA that describe post IRB- approval monitoring activities.

METHOD

This was a qualitative study. Thematic analysis was the method to review the webpage content of selected academic health centers (AHC) within the USA.

RESULTS

Some US academic health "centers" IRB administrative or research compliance offices conduct post- approval monitoring (PAM) of human subjects' research including clinical trials. The goals of this PAM programmes are to (a) ensure compliance to approved protocols, (b) preserve research integrity, (c) manage institutional risks, d) provide advisory/educational support to researchers, (e) recommend corrective actions for identified issues, and most importantly, (f) to protect the safety, rights, and well-being of research participants. Although not a requirement by law, the PAM program has legislative support in the US Code of Federal Regulations as part of the US Office for Human Research Protection's (OHRP) Federal Wide Assurance (FWA). This is especially for institutions that conduct studies funded by the Federal government. PAM on-site checks reveal various incidents of protocol deviations and violations. This includes issues with recruitment processes, informed consent discrepancies, and incidents of non-compliance. When a study protocol is identified as non-compliant, the principal investigator works with the PAM monitor to develop a corrective action plan that would allow the study to become compliant and avoid sanctions from the IRB or the regulatory authority.

CONCLUSIONS

REC/IRB post-approval monitoring of clinical trials is a valuable mechanism of protection for research participants while giving educational and quality assurance support to researchers. The program enables early detection and resolution of non-compliance to approved protocols. The impact of the program in the USA requires further exploration.

Factors relating to nonpublication and publication bias in clinical trials in Canada: A qualitative interview study

AIMS

This study aims to understand factors contributing to nonpublication and publication bias in clinical trials in Canada.

METHODS

Qualitative interviews were conducted between March 2019 and April 2021 with 34 participants from the Canadian provinces of Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario, including 17 clinical trial investigators, 1 clinical research coordinator, 3 research administrators, 3 research ethics board members and 10 clinical trial participants. We conducted a thematic analysis involving coding of interview transcripts and memo-writing to identify key themes.

RESULTS

Several factors contribute to nonpublication and publication bias in clinical trial research. A core theme was that reporting practices are shaped by incentives within the research system taht favour publication of positive over negative trials. Investigators are discouraged from reporting by experiences or perceptions of difficulty in publishing negative findings but rewarded for publishing positive findings in various ways. Trial investigators more strongly associated positive clinical trials than negative trials with opportunities for industry and nonindustry funding and with academic promotion, bonuses and recognition. Research institutions and ethics boards tended to lack well-resourced, proactive policies and practices to ensure trial findings are reported in registries or journals.

CONCLUSION

Clinical trial reporting practices in Canada are shaped by incentives favouring reporting of positive over negative trials, such as funding opportunities and academic promotion, bonuses and recognition. Research institutions could help change incentives by adopting performance metrics that emphasize full reporting of results in journals or registries.

Systematic review and narrative review lead experts to different cancer trial predictions: a randomized trial

OBJECTIVES

The objective of the study was to assess the impact of narrative review (NR) vs. systematic review (SR) on expert assessments of a clinical trial.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Experts in colon and rectal surgery were randomized to read an NR or SR for an ongoing clinical trial involving surgery for colorectal cancer. Experts from the United States and Canada completed online or paper surveys between December 2018 and June 2019. After reading the NR or SR, experts predicted the trial's outcome and evaluated the trial under a hypothetical ethical review.

RESULTS

Experts who read the NR (n = 55) compared with those who read the SR (n = 56) were more likely to predict a higher absolute risk reduction, 58% vs. 33%, P = 0.018, mean predictions 10.6% vs. 6.6%, mean difference 4.0% [95% confidence interval: 0.3%, 7.8%]. Experts who read the NR were more likely to evaluate the trial more favorably under a hypothetical ethical review, 48% vs. 26%, P = 0.039, 20.0% vs. 8.9% "strongly in favor" of trial being pursued.

CONCLUSION

An NR and an SR for the same trial led to different judgments of likely outcomes and ethical appropriateness. These differences point to a potential source of unaddressed bias in ethical review.

Redundant trials can be prevented, if the EU clinical trial regulation is applied duly

The problem of wasteful clinical trials has been debated relentlessly in the medical community. To a significant extent, it is attributed to redundant trials - studies that are carried out to address questions, which can be answered satisfactorily on the basis of existing knowledge and accessible evidence from prior research. This article presents the first evaluation of the potential of the EU Clinical Trials Regulation 536/2014, which entered into force in 2014 but is expected to become applicable at the end of 2021, to prevent such trials. Having reviewed provisions related to the trial authorisation, we propose how certain regulatory requirements for the assessment of trial applications can and should be interpreted and applied by national research ethics committees and other relevant authorities in order to avoid redundant trials and, most importantly, preclude the unnecessary recruitment of trial participants and their unjustified exposure to health risks.

Reporting of prior clinical studies in Investigator's Brochures did not adhere to the basic principles of evidence synthesis: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

International regulations require Investigator's Brochures (IBs) to compile all available evidence that inform the risk-benefit assessment for the newly planned clinical trial. This study examined the adherence of IBs to the basic principles of evidence synthesis when compiling prior clinical studies.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

For 97 IBs for phase I/II trials reviewed at one German research ethics committee we assessed the reporting on search, appraisal, and synthesis procedures for prior clinical studies. For a random subsample of 30 IBs, we evaluated the quality of reporting of the compiled 247 prior clinical studies.

RESULTS

Only 2% of all 97 IBs reported a comprehensive search strategy, provided a critical appraisal of the compiled prior clinical studies or presented respective study results in a structured manner. For the 247 prior clinical studies compiled in 30 IBs, the information required to appraise their risk of bias (eg, sample size calculation or baseline characteristics) was rarely reported.

CONCLUSION

When compiling all available evidence supporting the rationale for the proposed clinical study IBs do not acknowledge the broadly established principles for reviewing and reporting evidence. This may impact negatively on the trustworthiness and efficiency of risk-benefit assessment.

Rescuing Informed Consent: How the new "Key Information" and "Reasonable Person" Provisions in the Revised U.S. Common Rule open the door to long Overdue Informed Consent Disclosure Improvements and why we need to walk Through that door

There is substantial published evidence showing that countless people enroll each year in ethically deficient clinical trials. Many of the trials are problematic because the quality of the science used to justify their launch may not be sufficiently vetted while many other trials may lack requisite social value. This poses the question: why do people volunteer for them? The answer resides in large part in the fact that informed consent practices have historically masked, rather than disclosed, the information that would alert research candidates to the ethically problematic nature of the trials. The "reasonable person" and "key information" provisions in the revised US Common Rule create the opportunity to correct this historical shortcoming. Two sources are employed to shed light on what the "key information" is that should be disclosed to a "reasonable person": the original disclosure aims of the Nuremberg Code, as well as an extensive body of meta-research evidence. Those sources jointly support a range of new disclosures in the informed consent process that would unmask the heretofore undisclosed information. The resulting proposed new disclosures pertain to the overall success prospects of clinical trials, the quality of the prior research that both forms the basis of clinical trials and informs assessment of their risks and benefits, the potential social value of clinical trials, and the commercial purposes of clinical trials.

The introduction of research ethics review procedures at a university in South Africa: review outcomes of a social science research ethics committee

The research ethics committee (REC) is a key element of university administration and has gained increasing importance as a review mechanism for those institutions that wish to conduct responsible research, along with safeguarding research ethics standards, scientific merit and human rights of participants. Given the critical role of the university REC, it is argued that there is a need to assesses and understand the work of RECs to identify areas for improvement and thus focus on capacity building to respond to the escalating volume, type and complexity of research. This paper reports on the research ethics outcomes of a social science REC in a Business Faculty at a South African university during its seminal period of operation (2010–2015). Content methodology and a standardised questionnaire were used to assess the REC. The results show the increasing workload of the REC with favourable scores for submission/review processes and minute-taking. However, lower scores were seen for ethics education/training and tracking previously approved research. These shortcomings appear to be related to inadequate funding and resource support for research ethics education/training and administrative structures. Factors contributing to proposal rejections included weak research questions or hypotheses, poor questionnaires/interview schedule design and inadequate research ethics consideration in the proposal. It is argued that the complexity and escalation of research submissions to South African RECs necessitates that they are appropriately developed and capacitated to enhance their utility and thereby support the research mandate of universities.

Publication and non-publication of clinical trials in PTSD: an overview

BACKGROUND

Although a large number of clinical trials on interventions demonstrating efficacy (or lack thereof) are conducted annually, much of this evidence is not accessible to scientists and clinicians.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to determine the publication rate of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) trials that have been registered in clinical trial registries, and the factors associated with publication.

METHODS

Trials, completed on January 15, 2015, were identified via the US National Institutes of Health clinical trials registry, the European Union Clinical Trials Register and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. A systematic search for publications (published by the end of March 2018) related to each of the registered trials were then performed.

RESULTS

Four hundred and thirty-eight of 1982 potentially eligible trials were included. Only 34% of interventional trials were registered prior to initiation, 9% were registered within 2 months of starting and 20% after trial completion. Of the 438 included trials, 72% had generated peer-reviewed publications, while an additional 7% had disseminated results in some other form (such as on the trial database), 26 months after trial completion. Randomisation of a trial was the only factor individually associated with publication, in logistic regression analysis (p < 0.001). Intervention type, university as sponsor and study registration prior to completion were factors that influenced the time to publication, using Cox regression (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study underscores the importance of timely and accurate publication and dissemination of trial results, in order to avoid the potential waste of resources and to ensure research integrity and patient safety. We suggest that authors and journal editors adhere to conditions set out by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and that more diligent data sharing is encouraged through prospective trial registration and trial reporting websites.

The Practice of Research Ethics in Lebanon and Qatar: Perspectives of Researchers on Informed Consent

Informed consent requirements for conducting research with human participants are set by institutional review boards (IRBs) following established guidelines. Despite this, researchers continue to face challenges in seeking and obtaining informed consent. This study discusses researchers' views of such problems in Lebanon and Qatar, which vary in research regulation. We conducted in-depth interviews with 52 academic researchers from various fields of research in both countries and analyzed them using thematic analysis. Important disjunctions emerged between IRB requirements and actual practice. Variations in obtaining informed consent were affected by the research context, type of research, and the prevalent cultural norms and values. Regulatory systems and guidelines for informed consent do not necessarily ensure ethical research conduct. Implications for improvement are presented.

Randomised placebo-controlled trials of surgery: ethical analysis and guidelines

Use of a placebo control in surgical trials is a divisive issue. We argue that, in principle, placebo controls for surgery are necessary in the same way as for medicine. However, there are important differences between these types of trial, which both increase justification and limit application of surgical studies. We propose that surgical randomised placebo-controlled trials are ethical if certain conditions are fulfilled: (1) the presence of equipoise, defined as a lack of unbiased evidence for efficacy of an intervention; (2) clinically important research question; (3) the risk to patients is minimised and reasonable; (4) there is uncertainty about treatment allocation rather than deception; (5) there is preliminary evidence for efficacy, which justifies a placebo-controlled design; and (6) ideally, the placebo procedure should have some direct benefit to the patient, for example, as a diagnostic tool. Placebo-controlled trials in surgery will most often be justified when surgery is performed to improve function or relieve symptoms and when objective outcomes are not available, while the risk of mortality or significant morbidity is low. In line with medical placebo-controlled trials, the surgical trial (1) should be sufficiently powered and (2) standardised so that its results are valid, (3) consent should be valid, (4) the standard treatment or rescue medication should be provided if possible, and (5) after the trial, the patients should be told which treatment they received and there should be provision for post-trial care if the study may result in long-term negative effects. We comment and contrast our guidelines with those of the American Medical Association.

Randomized controlled trials of aprotinin in cardiac surgery: could clinical equipoise have stopped the bleeding?

Background Aprotinin is a serine protease inhibitor used to limit perioperative bleeding and reduce the need for donated blood transfusions during cardiac surgery. Randomized controlled trials of aprotinin evaluating its effect on the outcome of perioperative transfusion have been published since 1987, and systematic reviews were conducted in 1992 and 1997.

Methods A systematic search was conducted for all RCTs of aprotinin that used placebo controls or were open-label with no active control treatment. Data collected included the primary outcome, objective of each study, whether a systematic review was cited or conducted as part of the background and/or rationale for the study and the number of previously published RCTs cited. Cumulative meta-analyses were performed.

Results Sixty-four randomized, controlled trials of aprotinin were found, conducted between 1987 and 2002, reporting an endpoint of perioperative transfusion. Median trial size was 64 subjects, with a range of 20 to 1784. A cumulative meta-analysis indicated that aprotinin greatly decreased the need for perioperative transfusion, stabilizing at an odds ratio of 0.25 (p, 10 2 6) by the 12th study, published in June of 1992. The upper limit of the confidence interval never exceeded 0.65 and results were similar in all subgroups. Citation of previous RCTs was extremely low, with a median of 20% of prior trials cited. Only 7 of 44 (15%) of subsequent reports referenced the largest trial (N 1/4 1784), which was 28 times larger than the median trial size.

Conclusions This study demonstrates that investigators evaluating aprotinin were not adequately citing previous research, resulting in a large number of RCTs being conducted to address efficacy questions that prior trials had already definitively answered. Institutional review boards and journals could reduce the number of redundant trials by requiring investigators to conduct adequate searches for prior evidence and conducting systematic reviews.

Variation in university research ethics review: Reflections following an inter-university study in England

Conducting large multi-site research within universities highlights inconsistencies between universities in approaches, requirements and responses of research ethics committees. Within the context of a social science research study, we attempted to obtain ethical approval from 101 universities across England to recruit students for a short online survey. We received varied responses from research ethics committees of different universities with the steps to obtaining ethics approval ranging from those that only required proof of approval from our home institution, to universities that facilitated fast-track applications to those that required a full ethics review. Some universities also completely refused. After contacting all 101 universities in England, 60 universities gave clearance to our study. In this article, we present the different approaches universities adopted in response to our application to sample from students in their institution. We consider a number of conceptual and ethical issues pertinent to considering ethics approval for researchers from other universities in England and critically discuss three possible models of ethics governance that would cover all universities in England.

[Magnetic resonance imaging. Density equalizing mapping analysis of global research architecture]

BACKGROUND

Despite the great medical importance, there is still no comprehensive scientometric analysis regarding the results of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and the development of the importance for the healthcare system.

AIMS

This paper evaluated and analyzed the entire research publication results on the topic of MRI for the period 1981-2007 based on scientometric methods and parameters.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A scientometric analysis (database: ISI Web of Science 1981-2007, search terms MRI and magnetic resonance imaging) was performed. The following parameters were analyzed: number of publications, countries of publication, number of citations, citation rate and collaborations, using various analytical and display techniques, including density equalizing map projections.

RESULTS

Most of the 49,122 publications on MRI could be attributed to the USA (32.5 %), which also has the most cooperative collaborations. Within Europe, Germany (10.3 %) is the country with the highest number of publications followed by the UK (9.3 %). The western industrialized nations dominate over the rest of the world in terms of scientific developments of MRI. The thematic focus of the publications lies in the fields of radiology and neuroscience. In addition to the journal Neurology most scientific articles were published in Magnetic Resonance in Medicine and Circulation.

DISCUSSION

The results show that the current trend is continuing and the scientific interest in MRI is continuously increasing.

Are Research Ethics Committees Prepared for Community-Based Participatory Research?

Community-based participatory research (CBPR) is challenging to research ethics committees (RECs). We reviewed the REC preparedness when reviewing CBPR projects. We searched the MEDLINE database and included qualitative studies of CBPR researchers or REC members about their experiences with RECs. The search yielded 107 studies, of which 10 met our criteria. Barriers were that the community is not prepared to conduct research, the reluctance of RECs to work outside the university, the difficulty RECs have understanding CBPR, and that REC forms evaluate individual rather than community risk. Facilitators were having a CBPR expert as an REC member and educating RECs. Therefore, RECs are not prepared to evaluate CBPR projects leading to unnecessary delays in the approval process.

Bioethics: why philosophy is essential for progress

It is the JME's 40th anniversary and my 20th anniversary working in the field. I reflect on the nature of bioethics and medical ethics. I argue that both bioethics and medical ethics together have, in many ways, failed as fields. My diagnosis is that better philosophy is needed. I give some examples of the importance of philosophy to bioethics. I focus mostly on the failure of ethics in research and organ transplantation, although I also consider genetic selection, enhancement, cloning, futility, disability and other topics. I do not consider any topic comprehensively or systematically or address the many reasonable objections to my arguments. Rather, I seek to illustrate why philosophical analysis and argument remain as important as ever to progress in bioethics and medical ethics.

Barriers to and facilitators of interventions to counter publication bias: thematic analysis of scholarly articles and stakeholder interviews

BACKGROUND

When the nature and direction of research results affect their chances of publication, a distortion of the evidence base - termed publication bias - results. Despite considerable recent efforts to implement measures to reduce the non-publication of trials, publication bias is still a major problem in medical research. The objective of our study was to identify barriers to and facilitators of interventions to prevent or reduce publication bias.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed the scholarly literature and extracted data from articles. Further, we performed semi-structured interviews with stakeholders. We performed an inductive thematic analysis to identify barriers to and facilitators of interventions to counter publication bias.

RESULTS

The systematic review identified 39 articles. Thirty-four of 89 invited interview partners agreed to be interviewed. We clustered interventions into four categories: prospective trial registration, incentives for reporting in peer-reviewed journals or research reports, public availability of individual patient-level data, and peer-review/editorial processes. Barriers we identified included economic and personal interests, lack of financial resources for a global comprehensive trial registry, and different legal systems. Facilitators identified included: raising awareness of the effects of publication bias, providing incentives to make data publically available, and implementing laws to enforce prospective registration and reporting of clinical trial results.

CONCLUSIONS

Publication bias is a complex problem that reflects the complex system in which it occurs. The cooperation amongst stakeholders to increase public awareness of the problem, better tailoring of incentives to publish, and ultimately legislative regulations have the greatest potential for reducing publication bias.

Increasing value and reducing waste: addressing inaccessible research

The methods and results of health research are documented in study protocols, full study reports (detailing all analyses), journal reports, and participant-level datasets. However, protocols, full study reports, and participant-level datasets are rarely available, and journal reports are available for only half of all studies and are plagued by selective reporting of methods and results. Furthermore, information provided in study protocols and reports varies in quality and is often incomplete. When full information about studies is inaccessible, billions of dollars in investment are wasted, bias is introduced, and research and care of patients are detrimentally affected. To help to improve this situation at a systemic level, three main actions are warranted. First, academic institutions and funders should reward investigators who fully disseminate their research protocols, reports, and participant-level datasets. Second, standards for the content of protocols and full study reports and for data sharing practices should be rigorously developed and adopted for all types of health research. Finally, journals, funders, sponsors, research ethics committees, regulators, and legislators should endorse and enforce policies supporting study registration and wide availability of journal reports, full study reports, and participant-level datasets.

Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research regulation and management

After identification of an important research question and selection of an appropriate study design, waste can arise from the regulation, governance, and management of biomedical research. Obtaining regulatory and governance approval has become increasingly burdensome and disproportionate to the conceivable risks to research participants. Regulation and governance involve interventions that are assumed to be justified in the interests of patients and the public, but they can actually compromise these interests. Inefficient management of the procedural conduct of research is wasteful, especially if it results in poor recruitment and retention of participants in well designed studies addressing important questions. These sources of waste can be minimised if the following four recommendations are addressed. First, regulators should use their influence to reduce other causes of waste and inefficiency in research. Second, regulators and policy makers should work with researchers, patients, and health professionals to streamline and harmonise the laws, regulations, guidelines, and processes that govern whether and how research can be done, and ensure that they are proportionate to the plausible risks associated with the research. Third, researchers and research managers should increase the efficiency of recruitment, retention, data monitoring, and data sharing in research through use of research designs known to reduce inefficiencies, and further research should be done to learn how efficiency can be increased. Finally, everyone, particularly those responsible for health-care systems, should promote integration of research into everyday clinical practice. Regulators and researchers should monitor adherence to each of these recommendations and publish metrics.

Sample size determinations in original research protocols for randomised clinical trials submitted to UK research ethics committees: review

OBJECTIVES

To assess the completeness of reporting of sample size determinations in unpublished research protocols and to develop guidance for research ethics committees and for statisticians advising these committees.

DESIGN

Review of original research protocols.

STUDY SELECTION

Unpublished research protocols for phase IIb, III, and IV randomised clinical trials of investigational medicinal products submitted to research ethics committees in the United Kingdom during 1 January to 31 December 2009.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Completeness of reporting of the sample size determination, including the justification of design assumptions, and disagreement between reported and recalculated sample size.

RESULTS

446 study protocols were reviewed. Of these, 190 (43%) justified the treatment effect and 213 (48%) justified the population variability or survival experience. Only 55 (12%) discussed the clinical importance of the treatment effect sought. Few protocols provided a reasoned explanation as to why the design assumptions were plausible for the planned study. Sensitivity analyses investigating how the sample size changed under different design assumptions were lacking; six (1%) protocols included a re-estimation of the sample size in the study design. Overall, 188 (42%) protocols reported all of the information to accurately recalculate the sample size; the assumed withdrawal or dropout rate was not given in 177 (40%) studies. Only 134 of the 446 (30%) sample size calculations could be accurately reproduced. Study size tended to be over-estimated rather than under-estimated. Studies with non-commercial sponsors justified the design assumptions used in the calculation more often than studies with commercial sponsors but less often reported all the components needed to reproduce the sample size calculation. Sample sizes for studies with non-commercial sponsors were less often reproduced.

CONCLUSIONS

Most research protocols did not contain sufficient information to allow the sample size to be reproduced or the plausibility of the design assumptions to be assessed. Greater transparency in the reporting of the determination of the sample size and more focus on study design during the ethical review process would allow deficiencies to be resolved early, before the trial begins. Guidance for research ethics committees and statisticians advising these committees is needed.

The role for pragmatic randomized controlled trials (pRCTs) in comparative effectiveness research

There is a growing appreciation that our current approach to clinical research leaves important gaps in evidence from the perspective of patients, clinicians, and payers wishing to make evidence-based clinical and health policy decisions. This has been a major driver in the rapid increase in interest in comparative effectiveness research (CER), which aims to compare the benefits, risks, and sometimes costs of alternative health-care interventions in 'the real world'. While a broad range of experimental and nonexperimental methods will be used in conducting CER studies, many important questions are likely to require experimental approaches - that is, randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Concerns about the generalizability, feasibility, and cost of RCTs have been frequently articulated in CER method discussions. Pragmatic RCTs (or 'pRCTs') are intended to maintain the internal validity of RCTs while being designed and implemented in ways that would better address the demand for evidence about real-world risks and benefits for informing clinical and health policy decisions. While the level of interest and activity in conducting pRCTs is increasing, many challenges remain for their routine use. This article discusses those challenges and offers some potential ways forward.

Why we need easy access to all data from all clinical trials and how to accomplish it

International calls for registering all trials involving humans and for sharing the results, and sometimes also the raw data and the trial protocols, have increased in recent years. Such calls have come, for example, from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the World Health Organization (WHO), the US National Institutes of Heath, the US Congress, the European Commission, the European ombudsman, journal editors, The Cochrane Collaboration, and several funders, for example the UK Medical Research Council, the Wellcome Trust, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Hewlett Foundation. Calls for data sharing have mostly been restricted to publicly-funded research, but I argue that the distinction between publicly-funded and industry-funded research is an artificial and irrelevant one, as the interests of the patients must override commercial interests. I also argue why it is a moral imperative to render all results from all trials involving humans, also healthy volunteers, publicly available. Respect for trial participants who often run a personal and unknown risk by participating in trials requires that they--and therefore also the society at large that they represent--be seen as the ultimate owners of trial data. Data sharing would lead to tremendous benefits for patients, progress in science, and rational use of healthcare resources based on evidence we can trust. The harmful consequences are minor compared to the benefits. It has been amply documented that the current situation, with selective reporting of favorable research and biased data analyses being the norm rather than the exception, is harmful to patients and has led to the death of tens of thousands of patients that could have been avoided. National and supranational legislation is needed to make data sharing happen as guidelines and other voluntary agreements do not work. I propose the contents of such legislation and of appropriate sanctions to hold accountable those who refuse to share their data.

Poor citation of prior evidence in hip fracture trials

BACKGROUND

Failure to cite prior evidence in the medical literature may result in publication redundancy and inefficient use of research funding. We evaluated trials in which internal fixation was compared with arthroplasty for the treatment of hip fractures in order to determine the extent to which these randomized trials cited all relevant previous trials.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and Embase for all relevant articles on four topics: internal fixation compared with arthroplasty, total hip arthroplasty compared with hemiarthroplasty, sliding hip screws compared with other fixation devices, and surgical delay of hip fracture treatment. We determined the proportion of previous studies that were cited in comparison with the total number of previous studies that were citable (i.e., the citation rate) as well as the proportion of times that a study was cited in comparison with the total number of times that it could have been cited (i.e., the hit rate). A cumulative meta-analysis was performed for the "internal fixation compared with arthroplasty" topic to determine whether compelling evidence favoring one intervention existed at an earlier time.

RESULTS

In total, sixty studies were assessed and yielded an overall citation rate of 48%. All "highly cited" studies reported a positive result (favoring arthroplasty), and 60% were published in The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American or British volume). The results of a study and the journal of publication significantly affected the hit rate (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Our review of studies of hip fracture treatment suggests poor citation of the previous literature. Studies in higher-impact journals with positive results are more likely to be cited in subsequent studies. Therefore, redundancy in publication and unnecessary surgical trials often occur.

CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials

Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials.

Two prognostic indicators of the publication rate of clinical studies were available during ethical review

OBJECTIVE

To identify prognostic indicators of the publication rate of clinical studies, available to research ethics committees (RECs) during review.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Retrospective survival study of a random sample of 100 studies, approved by a Dutch academic REC, with follow-up information by questionnaire and bibliographic searches. Multivariate Cox regression analysis of the association between publication rate and seven factors available during review: six study characteristics and the number of letters sent by the committee during review representing the length of the review process.

RESULTS

Two factors were associated with publication rate: studies with possible therapeutic benefit to participants were less likely to be published than nontherapeutic studies (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR]: 0.16; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.03-0.54); with every letter sent, publication was less likely (AHR: 0.46 per letter; 95% CI: 0.17-0.98). Possibly, studies with more-than-minimal burdens to participants were more likely to be published than studies with minimal burdens (AHR: 3.90, 95% CI: 1.03-16.64).

CONCLUSION

We identified two prognostic indicators of publication rate. After suitable replication, RECs might explore using prognostic indicators, such as these, to target study protocols at high risk for nonpublication. Discussing the risk of nonpublication with investigators could help prevent nonpublication.

From Mexico to Mali: four years in the history of clinical trial registration

In the 4 years between the Ministerial Forums on research and health held in Mexico in 2004 and Mali in 2008, the landscape of clinical trial registration changed significantly. When the ICMJE announced that they would no longer consider publishing the findings of clinical trials unless the research had been prospectively registered, they were key to shifting the way the clinical trials community thinks about research transparency. The argument in favour of greater transparency had been building for more than 20 years. By 2004 there was consistent and convincing evidence of the existence of publication bias and the damage this does to people's ability to make well informed decisions about health care. There is now increasing acceptance that the registration of clinical trials in a publicly accessible registry is a scientific, ethical and moral responsibility. In 2004, less than 3000 clinical trials were registered on databases meeting ICMJE criteria. There are now more than 19000 and, in some countries, prospective registration in a publicly accessible registry is now a legal requirement. Further, since October 2008, prospective registration is required if researchers wish to comply with the Declaration of Helsinki. However, despite these advances and incentives, trial registration in many countries remains far from comprehensive and stronger enforcement mechanisms may be needed in those countries.

Using health technology assessment to identify research gaps: an unexploited resource for increasing the value of clinical research

Health technology assessments (HTAs) are an as yet unexploited source of comprehensive, systematically generated information that could be used by research funding agencies to formulate researchable questions that are relevant to decision-makers. We describe a process that was developed for distilling evidence gaps identified in HTAs into researchable questions that a provincial research funding agency can use to inform its research agenda. The challenges of moving forward with this initiative are discussed. Using HTA results to identify research gaps will allow funding agencies to reconcile the different agendas of researchers who conduct clinical trials and healthcare decision-makers, and will likely result in more balanced funding of pragmatic and explanatory trials. This initiative may require a significant cultural shift from the current, mostly reactive, funding environment based on an application-driven, competitive approach to allocating scarce research resources to a more collaborative, contractual one that is proactive, targeted and outcomes-based.

Recommendations for reporting randomized controlled trials of herbal interventions: explanation and elaboration

Controlled trials that use randomized allocation are the best tool to control for bias and confounding in trials testing clinical interventions. Investigators must be sure to include information that is required by the reader to judge the validity and implications of the findings in the reports of these trials. In part, complete reporting of trials will allow clinicians to modify their clinical practice to reflect current evidence toward the improvement of clinical outcomes. The consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) statement was developed to assist investigators, authors, reviewers, and editors on the necessary information to be included in reports of controlled clinical trials. The CONSORT statement is applicable to any intervention, including herbal medicinal products. Controlled trials of herbal interventions do not adequately report the information suggested in CONSORT. Recently, reporting recommendations were developed in which several CONSORT items were elaborated to become relevant and complete for randomized controlled trials of herbal medicines. We expect that these recommendations will lead to more complete and accurate reporting of herbal trials. We wrote this explanatory document to outline the rationale for each recommendation and to assist authors in using them by providing the CONSORT items and the associated elaboration, together with examples of good reporting and empirical evidence, where available, for each. These recommendations for the reporting of herbal medicinal products presented here are open to revision as more evidence accumulates and critical comments are collected.

Concept paper: a virtual centralized IRB system

CONTEXT

As the volume and complexity of research have increased, the amount of time spent on Institutional Review Board (IRB) review has decreased. The complexity of research has expanded, requiring increasingly specialized knowledge to review it. Dilemma: Under the current system, increasing numbers of research studies requiring expertise in ethics, new technologies or diverse study designs place a substantial burden upon local IRBs and often result in substantial variability among their reviews. This lack of uniformity in the review process creates uneven human subjects' protection thus undermining the intent of the Common Rule.

OBJECTIVES

To outline a scenario for expert centralized IRB review via implementation of a national virtual IRB review system overseen by the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP).

CONCLUSIONS

The complicated ethical issues and science involved in much of current research warrant an expert review panel. Centralized review would enable expert review specific to the research at hand, ensure consistency in human subjects protection, reduce the burden on local IRBs, and may reduce time spent obtaining approval. A centralized virtual system would allow IRB members to remain at their institutions while providing unprecedented expert review through currently available technology, and make information regarding monitoring and adverse event reporting available online in real-time.

Systematic evaluation and comparison of statistical tests for publication bias

BACKGROUND: This study evaluates the statistical and discriminatory powers of three statistical test methods (Begg’s, Egger’s, and Macaskill’s) to detect publication bias in meta-analyses.

METHODS: The data sources were 130 reviews from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2002 issue, which considered a binary endpoint and contained 10 or more individual studies. Funnel plots with observers’ agreements were selected as a reference standard. We evaluated a trade-off between sensitivity and specificity by varying cut-off p-values, power of statistical tests given fixed false positive rates, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve.

RESULTS: In 36 reviews, 733 original studies evaluated 2,874,006 subjects. The number of trials included in each ranged from 10 to 70 (median 14.5). Given that the false positive rate was 0.1, the sensitivity of Egger’s method was 0.93, and was larger than that of Begg’s method (0.86) and Macaskill’s method (0.43). The sensitivities of three statistical tests increased as the cut-off p-values increased without a substantial decrement of specificities. The area under the ROC curve of Egger’s method was 0.955 (95% confidence interval, 0.889-1.000) and was not different from that of Begg’s method (area=0.913, p=0.2302), but it was larger than that of Macaskill’s method (area=0.719, p=0.0116).

CONCLUSION: Egger’s linear regression method and Begg’s method had stronger statistical and discriminatory powers than Macaskill’s method for detecting publication bias given the same type I error level. The power of these methods could be improved by increasing the cut-off p-value without a substantial increment of false positive rate.

Research ethics committees: agents of research policy?

The purpose of this commentary is to describe the unintended effects ethics committees may have on research and to analyse the regulatory and administrative problems of clinical trials.

Publication of clinical trials: accountability and accessibility

Publication of findings from clinical trials is a necessary step in the research continuum, to provide a record of the work done, convey information to the community, and support translation of research into clinical practice. Systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials are now widely regarded as the highest level of evidence in determining the effect of an intervention on an outcome. They largely depend on internationally accessible, published reports of all trials undertaken. Investigators and their institutions or organizations have responsibility for reporting their clinical trials accurately and completely, including disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. To ensure evidence-based health care, issues relating to accessibility and accountability of clinical trial results require immediate action.

Research Ethics Committees

There is an increasing crisis of credibility in the world of clinical and epidemiological research because of lack of transparency in the identification of research priorities, increasing dominance of commercial interests over patients' problems, limited funds for independent research, and lack of awareness that clinical research is integral to the duties of clinicians as patients' agents. Research Ethics Committees (RECs) are an important component of the research world and since their institution there are expectations at their ability to protect patients and improve clinico-epidemiological research. To many people, however, the task of RECs is still essentially that of safeguarding the ethical/informed consent issues related to research protocols without a role in the core content (scientific and clinical) of the research projects themselves. Others argue that the duties of RECs should be broader because scientifically invalid research is in itself unethical. The remits of RECs, therefore, should embrace a full range of issues, from assessment of the core content of research (objectives, nonredundancy, clinical relevance, and likelihood of reaching the stated goals) to the protection of publication and dissemination rights of researchers from the intrusiveness of commercial sponsors. This debate is further complicated by current arrangements in countries where RECs' decentralization has made their operation less homogeneous and reproducible, with a diffuse discontent about the end results of their activities. In the first part of the article I discuss the evolution of the concept of the ethics of clinical research and the main differences in the arrangements of RECs across Europe. In the second part, after a brief discussion of the new European Directive on Clinical Trials and its potential problematic impact on publicly-funded trials, I propose a series of actions that should be taken to improve the functioning of RECs and outline the cultural changes needed for research of better methodological quality and of greater relevance to patients.

Equipoise, design bias, and randomized controlled trials: the elusive ethics of new drug development

The concept of 'equipoise', or the 'uncertainty principle', has been represented as a central ethical principle, and holds that a subject may be enrolled in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) only if there is true uncertainty about which of the trial arms is most likely to benefit the patient. We sought to estimate the frequency with which equipoise conditions were met in industry-sponsored RCTs in rheumatology, to explore the reasons for any deviations from equipoise, to examine the concept of 'design bias', and to consider alternative ethical formulations that might improve subject safety and autonomy. We studied abstracts accepted for the 2001 American College of Rheumatology meetings that reported RCTs, acknowledged industry sponsorship, and had clinical end-points (n = 45), and examined the proportion of studies that favored the registration or marketing of the sponsor's drug. In every trial (45/45) results were favorable to the sponsor, indicating that results could have been predicted in advance solely by knowledge of sponsorship (P < 0.0001). Equipoise clearly was being systematically violated. Publication bias appeared to be an incomplete explanation for this dramatic result; this bias occurs after a study is completed. Rather, we hypothesize that 'design bias', in which extensive preliminary data are used to design studies with a high likelihood of being positive, is the major cause of the asymmetric results. Design 'bias' occurs before the trial is begun and is inconsistent with the equipoise principle. However, design bias increases scientific efficiency, decreases drug development costs, and limits the number of subjects required, probably reducing aggregate risks to participants. Conceptual and ethical issues were found with the equipoise principle, which encourages performance of negative studies; ignores patient values, patient autonomy, and social benefits; is applied at a conceptually inappropriate decision point (after randomization rather than before); and is in conflict with the Belmont, Nuremberg, and other sets of ethical principles, as well as with US Food and Drug Administration procedures. We propose a principle of 'positive expected outcomes', which informs the assessment that a trial is ethical, together with a restatement of the priority of personal autonomy.

Short-term low-dose corticosteroids vs placebo and nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs in rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

The effect of low dose corticosteroids, equivalent to 15 mg prednisolone daily or less, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis has been questioned. We performed a systematic review of trials which compared corticosteroids with placebo or non-steroidal, anti-inflammatory drugs.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether short-term (i.e. as recorded within the first month of therapy), oral low-dose corticosteroids (corresponding to a maximum of 15 mg prednisolone daily) is superior to placebo and non-steroidal, anti-inflammatory drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

PubMed, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL ), reference lists were searched until February 2004.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised studies comparing an oral corticosteroid (not exceeding an equivalent of 15 mg prednisolone daily) with placebo or a non-steroidal, anti-inflammatory drug were eligible if they reported clinical outcomes within one month after start of therapy. For adverse effects, long-term trials and matched cohort studies were also selected.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Decisions on which trials to include were made independently by two observers based on the methods sections of the trials. Standardised mean difference (random effects model) was used for the statistical analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten studies, involving 320 patients, were included. Prednisolone had a marked effect over placebo on joint tenderness (standardised mean difference 1.30, 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 1.83), pain (1.75, 0.87 to 2.64) and grip strength (0.41, 0.13 to 0.69). Measured in the original units, the differences were 12 tender joints (6 to 18) and 22 mm Hg (5 to 40) for grip strength. Prednisolone also had a greater effect than non-steroidal, anti-inflammatory drugs on joint tenderness (0.63, 0.11 to 1.16) and pain (1.25, 0.26 to 2.24), whereas the difference in grip strength was not significant (0.31, -0.02 to 0.64). Measured in the original units, the differences were 9 tender joints (5 to 12) and 12 mm Hg (-6 to 31). The risk of adverse effects, also during moderate- and long-term use, seemed acceptable.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

Prednisolone in low doses (not exceeding 15 mg daily) may be used intermittently in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, particularly if the disease cannot be controlled by other means. Since prednisolone is highly effective, short-term placebo controlled trials studying the clinical effect of low-dose prednisolone or other oral corticosteroids are no longer necessary.