Characteristics of funding of clinical trials: cross-sectional survey and proposed guidance

Promoting equity in clinical research: The role of social determinants of health

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to investigate the association between social determinants of health (SDoH) and clinical research recruitment outcomes and recommends evidence-based strategies to enhance equity.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data were collected from the internal clinical study manager database, clinical data warehouse, and clinical research registry. Study characteristics (e.g., study phase) and sociodemographic information were extracted. Median neighborhood income, distance from the study location, and Area Deprivation Index (ADI) were calculated. Mixed effect generalized regression was used for clustering effects and false discovery rate adjustment for multiple testing. A stratified analysis was performed to examine the impact in distinct medical departments.

RESULTS

The study sample consisted of 3,962 individuals, with a mean age of 61.5 years, 53.6 % male, 54.2 % White, and 49.1 % non-Hispanic or Latino. Study characteristics revealed a variety of protocols across different departments, with cardiology having the highest percentage of participants (46.4 %). Industry funding was the most common (74.5 %), and digital advertising and personal outreach were the main recruitment methods (58.9 % and 90.8 %).

DISCUSSION

The analysis demonstrated significant associations between participant characteristics and research participation, including biological sex, age, ethnicity, and language. The stratified analysis revealed other significant associations for recruitment strategies. SDoH is crucial to clinical research recruitment, and this study presents evidence-based solutions for equity and inclusivity. Researchers can tailor recruitment strategies to overcome barriers and increase participant diversity by identifying participant characteristics and research involvement status.

CONCLUSION

The findings highlight the relevance of clinical research inequities and equitable representation of historically underrepresented populations. We need to improve recruitment strategies to promote diversity and inclusivity in research.

Eye on the Prize: Patient Outcomes Research in Medical Education

The overarching goal of medical education is to train clinicians who achieve and maintain competence in patient care. Although the field of medical education research has acknowledged the importance of education on clinical practices and outcomes, most research endeavors continue to focus on learner-centered outcomes, such as knowledge and attitudes. The absence of clinical and patient-centered outcomes in pulmonary and critical care medicine medical education research has been attributed to barriers at multiple levels, including financial, methodological, and practical considerations. This Perspective explores clinical outcomes relevant to pulmonary and critical care medicine educational research and offers strategies and solutions that educators can use to accomplish what many consider the "prize" of medical education research: an understanding of how our educational initiatives impact the health of patients.

Discontinuation and nonpublication of clinical trials in orthopaedic oncology

BACKGROUND

Despite the pivotal role of clinical trials in advancing orthopaedic oncology knowledge and treatment strategies, the persistent issues of trial discontinuation and nonpublication are significant problems. This study conducted an analysis examining clinical trial discontinuation rates, associations between intervention types and discontinuation/nonpublication, and the role of funding, enrollment size, and their implications for trial success and completion.

METHODS

This study, conducted on May 1, 2023, utilized a cross-sectional design to comprehensively analyze phase 3 and 4 randomized controlled trials within the realm of orthopaedic oncology. We specifically incorporated Phase 3 and 4 trials as they are designed to evaluate prolonged outcomes in human subjects and are more likely to reach publication. Study characteristics of interest included the intervention utilized in the clinical trial, presence of funding, whether the trial was published, completed, and trial enrollment size. The investigation involved an examination of ClinicalTrials.gov, a prominent online repository of clinical trial data managed by the National Library of Medicine of the USA. Descriptive statistics and multivariate logistic regressions were used to determine statistical significance.

RESULTS

Among the cohort of 130 trials, 19.2% were prematurely discontinued. Completion rates varied based on intervention type; 111 pharmaceutical trials demonstrated a completion rate of 83.8%, whereas 19 non-pharmaceutical trials exhibited a completion rate of 8.0% (P < .001). Surgical trials, totaling 10, showed a completion rate of 90%. The overall trial publication rate was 86.15%, with pharmaceutical interventions achieving a publication rate of 91.96%. Larger-scale trials (≥ 261 participants) emerged as a protective factor against both discontinuation (Adjusted Odds Ratio [AOR]: 0.85, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 0.42-0.95) and nonpublication (AOR: 0.19, 95% CI 0.13-.47), compared to smaller-scale trials.

CONCLUSION

This study accentuates the heightened vulnerability of non-pharmaceutical interventions and trials exhibiting lower rates of enrollment to the issues of discontinuation and nonpublication. Moving forward, the advancement of clinical trials necessitates a concerted effort to enhance trial methodologies, especially concerning nonpharmaceutical interventions, along with a meticulous refinement of participant enrollment criteria.

Optimal Design of Clinical Trials Involving Persons with Disorders of Consciousness

BACKGROUND

Limited data exist regarding the optimal clinical trial design for studies involving persons with disorders of consciousness (DoC), and only a few therapies have been tested in high-quality clinical trials. To address this, the Curing Coma Campaign Clinical Trial Working Group performed a gap analysis on the current state of clinical trials in DoC to identify the optimal clinical design for studies involving persons with DoC.

METHODS

The Curing Coma Campaign Clinical Trial Working Group was divided into three subgroups to (1) review clinical trials involving persons with DoC, (2) identify unique challenges in the design of clinical trials involving persons with DoC, and (3) recommend optimal clinical trial designs for DoC.

RESULTS

There were 3055 studies screened, and 66 were included in this review. Several knowledge gaps and unique challenges were identified. There is a lack of high-quality clinical trials, and most data regarding patients with DoC are based on observational studies focusing on patients with traumatic brain injury and cardiac arrest. There is a lack of a structured long-term outcome assessment with significant heterogeneity in the methodology, definitions of outcomes, and conduct of studies, especially for long-term follow-up. Another major barrier to conducting clinical trials is the lack of resources, especially in low-income countries. Based on the available data, we recommend incorporating trial designs that use master protocols, sequential multiple assessment randomized trials, and comparative effectiveness research. Adaptive platform trials using a multiarm, multistage approach offer substantial advantages and should make use of biomarkers to assess treatment responses to increase trial efficiency. Finally, sound infrastructure and international collaboration are essential to facilitate the conduct of trials in patients with DoC.

CONCLUSIONS

Conduct of trials in patients with DoC should make use of master protocols and adaptive design and establish international registries incorporating standardized assessment tools. This will allow the establishment of evidence-based practice recommendations and decrease variations in care.

Primary prevention of venous thromboembolism for cancer patients in randomized controlled trials: a bibliographical analysis of funding and trial characteristics

Background

The majority of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in patients with cancer involve commercial sponsorship. Commercial sponsorship overcomes feasibility limitations inherent in RCTs, such as recruitment and funding, but has attracted scrutiny for its potential for bias.

Objectives

In RCTs of VTE prophylaxis in patients with cancer, how do trial characteristics compare between commercially sponsored RCTs and noncommercially sponsored RCTs?

Methods

Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for RCTs that investigated at least 1 pharmacologic intervention for VTE prophylaxis in adult patients with cancer. Screening and data extraction were conducted by independent reviewers. Outcomes included trial characteristics, reporting of favorable outcomes, protocol-manuscript discrepancies, and appraisal of spin. Outcomes were compared using the independent t-test, Mann-Whitney U-test, Pearson chi-squared test, and Fisher's exact test. Logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with possible bias.

Results

Of the 54 trials analyzed, 34 (63%) reported commercial sponsorship. Commercial sponsorship was not associated with the reporting of favorable outcomes, presence of spin, retrospective registration, or protocol-manuscript discrepancy. Spin was most prevalent in the abstract conclusions (9 out of 17 [53.3%]) and manuscript conclusions (8 out of 17 [46.7%]).Commercially sponsored trials had a higher rate of intention-to-treat analysis. Noncommercially sponsored trials were more likely to report retrospective registration of trial protocol and the use of composite primary outcomes.

Conclusion

There were few significant differences between trial characteristics, suggesting that the evidence from commercially sponsored trials investigating VTE prophylaxis in patients with cancer is unlikely to be subject to bias attributable to commercial sponsorship.

A structured approach to information retrieval improved identification of funding and researchers' conflicts of interest in trials included in Cochrane reviews

OBJECTIVES

To compare the contemporary Cochrane review approach for retrieving information on trial funding and researchers' conflicts of interest with a structured approach for information retrieval.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Methodological study of 100 Cochrane reviews from August to December 2020 and one randomly selected trial from each review. Reporting of trial funding and researchers' conflicts of interest in reviews was compared with information identified using a structured retrieval process, and time to retrieve information was noted. We also formulated a guide to systematic reviewers for efficient information retrieval.

RESULTS

Sixty-eight of 100 Cochrane reviews reported trial funding and 24 reported trial researchers' conflicts of interest. A simple structured approach, searching only trial publications (including conflicts of interest disclosure forms), identified funding for 16 additional trials and conflicts of interest information for 39 additional trials. A comprehensive structured approach, searching multiple information sources, identified funding for two additional trials and conflicts of interest for 14 additional trials. The median time to retrieve information was 10 minutes per trial (interquartile range: 7-15) for the simple approach and 20 minutes (11-43) for the comprehensive approach.

CONCLUSION

A structured information retrieval approach improves identification of funding and researchers' conflicts of interest in trials included in Cochrane reviews.

Conflict of interest and funding in health communication on social media: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To synthesise the available evidence on the reporting of conflicts of interest (COI) by individuals posting health messages on social media, and on the reporting of funding sources of studies cited in health messages on social media.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE (OVID) (2005-March 2022), Embase (2005-March 2022) and Google Scholar (2005-August 2022), supplemented with a review of reference lists and forward citation tracking.

DESIGN

Reviewers selected eligible studies and abstracted data in duplicate and independently. We appraised the quality of the included studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. We summarised the results in both narrative and tabular formats. We followed the PRISMA 2020 checklist for reporting our study.

RESULTS

Of a total of 16 645 retrieved citations, we included 17 eligible studies. The frequency of reporting of conflicts of interest varied between 0% and 60%, but it was mostly low. In addition, a significant proportion, ranging between 15% and 80%, of healthcare professionals using social media have financial relationships with industry. However, three studies assessed the proportion of conflicts of interest of physicians identified through Open Payment Database but not reported by the authors. It was found that 98.7-100% of these relationships with industry are not reported when communicating health-related information. Also, two studies showed that there is evidence of a potential association between COI and the content of posting. No data was found on the reporting of funding sources of studies cited in health messages on social media.

CONCLUSIONS

While a significant proportion of healthcare professionals using social media have financial relationships with industry, lack of reporting on COI and undisclosed COI are common. We did not find studies on the reporting of funding sources of studies cited in health messages on social media.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.5jyl8jj4rg2w/v1.

Consent document translation expense hinders inclusive clinical trial enrolment

Patients from historically under-represented racial and ethnic groups are enrolled in cancer clinical trials at disproportionately low rates in the USA1-3. As these patients often have limited English proficiency4-7, we hypothesized that one barrier to their inclusion is the cost to investigators of translating consent documents. To test this hypothesis, we evaluated more than 12,000 consent events at a large cancer centre and assessed whether patients requiring translated consent documents would sign consent documents less frequently in studies lacking industry sponsorship (for which the principal investigator pays the translation costs) than for industry-sponsored studies (for which the translation costs are covered by the sponsor). Here we show that the proportion of consent events for patients with limited English proficiency in studies not sponsored by industry was approximately half of that seen in industry-sponsored studies. We also show that among those signing consent documents, the proportion of consent documents translated into the patient's primary language in studies without industry sponsorship was approximately half of that seen in industry-sponsored studies. The results suggest that the cost of consent document translation in trials not sponsored by industry could be a potentially modifiable barrier to the inclusion of patients with limited English proficiency.

Randomised controlled trials of non-pharmacological interventions to improve patient-reported outcomes of colonoscopy: a scoping review

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Non-pharmacological interventions to improve patient-reported outcomes of colonoscopy may be effective at mitigating negative experiences and perceptions of the procedure, but research to characterise the extent and features of studies of these interventions is limited.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review searching multiple databases for peer-reviewed publications of randomised controlled trials conducted in adults investigating a non-pharmacological intervention to improve patient-reported outcomes of colonoscopy. Study characteristics were tabulated and summarised narratively and graphically.

RESULTS

We screened 5939 citations and 962 full texts, and included 245 publications from 39 countries published between 1992 and 2022. Of these, 80.8% were full publications and 19.2% were abstracts. Of the 41.9% of studies reporting funding sources, 11.4% were unfunded. The most common interventions were carbon dioxide and/or water insufflation methods (33.9%), complementary and alternative medicines (eg, acupuncture) (20.0%), and colonoscope technology (eg, magnetic scope guide) (21.6%). Pain was as an outcome across 82.0% of studies. Studies most often used a patient-reported outcome examining patient experience during the procedure (60.0%), but 42.9% of studies included an outcome without specifying the time that the patient experienced the outcome. Most intraprocedural patient-reported outcomes were measured retrospectively rather than contemporaneously, although studies varied in terms of when outcomes were assessed.

CONCLUSION

Research on non-pharmacological interventions to improve patient-reported outcomes of colonoscopy is unevenly distributed across types of intervention and features high variation in study design and reporting, in particular around outcomes. Future research efforts into non-pharmacological interventions to improve patient-reported outcomes of colonoscopy should be directed at underinvestigated interventions and developing consensus-based guidelines for study design, with particular attention to how and when outcomes are experienced and measured.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

42020173906.

Rheumatology research output in the Arab World: despite the challenges

Rheumatology is a field in which diagnostic, pathophysiological, and therapeutic advancements occur daily. These developments are the result of research in basic sciences, translational sciences, and clinical sciences. Physical and financial support, provided by individuals and institutions, is essential for all types of research. The political and economic instability in the Arab world has impacted the advancement of healthcare and the output of research. This review seeks to evaluate the quantity and quality of rheumatology-related research conducted in the Arab world. This review examined the number of rheumatological clinical publications produced by Arab countries between 2017 and 2021 and cited by PubMed/MEDLINE. Publications with authors from multiple nations were disqualified. Publications were then categorized by type, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, cross-sectional studies, systematic reviews, narrative reviews, and case reports. Publications were also organized according to the regions of the Arab world: North and East Africa, the Middle East, and the Arabian Peninsula. The review also used data from the world bank to evaluate the gross domestic product (GDP) and total population of Arabian nations in order to calculate a ratio of publications to GDP and publications to population. Egypt had the highest number of publications among north and east African countries and Arab countries in general, with 261 publications, including the highest number of RCTs, which were 23. With 81 publications, Saudi Arabia had the highest number of publications on the Arabian peninsula. However, no individual country on the Arabian peninsula published an RCT. Lebanon had the most publications in the Middle East, but the majority were reviews and case reports. Tunisia had the highest ratio of publications to GDP. Notably, the number of publications increased during the coronavirus disease 2019 era in some countries. The Arab world is still able to produce clinical rheumatology publications despite its political instability and lack of resources. The influence of such publications on the daily practice of rheumatology is still debatable.

The Impact of Drug Trials With Financial Conflict of Interests on the Meta-analyses: A Meta-epidemiological Study

BACKGROUND

To assess the impact of trials with potential financial conflict of interests (FCOIs) on evidence synthesis in meta-analyses (MAs).

METHODS

A total of 96 MAs from the Cochrane Library about drug trials were investigated. The primary outcomes examined the proportion of conclusions that would change with the exclusion of trials with potential FCOIs. If the proportion of changed conclusions was below the non-inferiority margin of 10%, we considered that it was not inferior to include the trials with potential FCOIs in the MAs.

RESULTS

Only 54.17% of MAs reported the funding sources of each included trial, and in 21.88% of MAs, the author-industry-related financial ties of each included trial were reported. When trials with FCOIs were excluded, the changed conclusions of effectiveness and major adverse events were 13.16% and 11.11%, respectively, and the I2 decreased by 13.56% and 10.09%, respectively. For serious adverse events, the exclusion of FCOIs trials did not lead to any change in conclusions; however, the I2 decreased by 24.24%. The impact of trials without reported FCOIs was also examined on evidence synthesis, and the results showed that the changed conclusions of effectiveness and major adverse events were 5.26% and 6.25%, respectively, indicating non-inferiority. However, the I2 increased by 13.60% and 12.37%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

In this meta-epidemiological study, we demonstrated that trials with FCOIs may not only influence the final outcome of MAs but may also increase the heterogeneity of results. It is suggested that all MAs fully report the FCOIs involved in evidence-based research and explore the impact of its FCOIs to better provide a more valuable reference for patients, clinicians, and policy-makers.

Outcome measurements and quality of randomized controlled clinical trials of tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses: A systematic review and qualitative analysis

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The lack of consensus regarding a standardized set of outcome measurements and noncompliance with current reporting guidelines in clinical trials of tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) hamper interstudy comparability, compromise scientific evidence, and waste research effort and resources in prosthetic dentistry.

PURPOSE

The primary objective of this systematic review was to identify all primary and secondary outcome measurements assessed in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of tooth-supported FDPs. Secondary objectives were to assess their methodological quality by using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool (RoB, v2.0) and their reporting quality by means of a standardized 16-item CONSORT assessment tool through published reports.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An electronic search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane library to identify all RCT-related articles published in the past 10 years. Differences in RoB were tested with the Pearson chi-square test, and those in CONSORT score with the Student t test.

RESULTS

A total of 64 RCTs from 79 publications were deemed eligible. The diversity of outcome measures used in the field is apparent. Twenty percent of the included studies had a low RoB, 79% showed some concerns, and 1% had a high RoB. The mean ±standard deviation CONSORT compliance score was 22.56 ±3.17. Trials adhered to the CONSORT statement reported lower RoB than those that did not adhere (P<.001). RCTs with a low RoB reported more comprehensive adherence to CONSORT guidelines than those with some concerns (MD 4 [95% CI 1.52-6.48]; P=.004).

CONCLUSIONS

A standardized core outcome reporting set in clinical research on tooth-supported FDPs remains evident. Adherence to the CONSORT statement continues to be low, with some RoB concerns that can be improved.

Transparency of COVID-19-Related Research in Dental Journals

Objective

We aimed to assess the adherence to transparency practices (data availability, code availability, statements of protocol registration and conflicts of interest and funding disclosures) and FAIRness (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) of shared data from open access COVID-19-related articles published in dental journals available from the Europe PubMed Central (PMC) database.

Methods

We searched and exported all COVID-19-related open-access articles from PubMed-indexed dental journals available in the Europe PMC database in 2020 and 2021. We detected transparency indicators with a validated and automated tool developed to extract the indicators from the downloaded articles. Basic journal- and article-related information was retrieved from the PMC database. Then, from those which had shared data, we assessed their accordance with FAIR data principles using the F-UJI online tool (f-uji.net).

Results

Of 650 available articles published in 59 dental journals, 74% provided conflicts of interest disclosure and 40% funding disclosure and 4% were preregistered. One study shared raw data (0.15%) and no study shared code. Transparent practices were more common in articles published in journals with higher impact factors, and in 2020 than in 2021. Adherence to the FAIR principles in the only paper that shared data was moderate.

Conclusion

While the majority of the papers had a COI disclosure, the prevalence of the other transparency practices was far from the acceptable level. A much stronger commitment to open science practices, particularly to preregistration, data and code sharing, is needed from all stakeholders.

Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic Declaration on New Oncology Trial Commencements: An Interrupted Time Series with Segmented Regression Analysis

This study aimed to assess the trend in oncology trial commencements registered on ClinicalTrials.gov and to evaluate the contributing factors by comparing the trends in the pre- and post-COVID-19 pandemic era. The ClinicalTrials.gov database was searched to identify oncology study trials starting from 1 January 2018 to 28 February 2021. Data on the variables of start/complete date, phase, status, funding source, center, country and study type were extracted. According to the time point of the COVID-19 pandemic declaration by the World Health Organization (WHO), March 2020, we analyzed the extracted data, including interrupted time series (ITS) analysis and multivariable regression analysis. We identified 18,561 new oncology trials during the study period. A total of 5678 oncology trials in the prepandemic period and 6134 in the postpandemic period were included in the comparative analysis. The year 2020 had the most newly launched trials (32.3%), and the majority of trials were planned to be conducted for longer than two years (70.3%). The results of ITS show the trend in the commencement of oncology trials was significantly increased after the pandemic declaration (coefficient = 27.99; 95% CI = 19.27 to 36.71). Drug intervention trials were the largest contributor to the increased trial number compared to different interventions, such as trials of devices or procedures (OR = 1.14; 95% CI = 1.03 to 1.26, OR = 1.09; 95% CI = 0.91 to 1.29, and OR = 1.12; 95% CI = 0.96 to 1.31, respectively), whereas the United Kingdom was the highest contributor to the number of decreased trials (OR = 0.67; 95% CI = 0.51 to 0.89 p = 0.01) in the postpandemic era. The interruption in oncology trial initiation was diminished shortly after the COVID-19 pandemic declaration, which was influenced by several factors, such as interventions or national responses. Based on the current outcomes, appropriate strategies for developing oncology trials can be planned to mitigate the impact of future crises on oncology trials.

Characterising COVID-19 empirical research production in Latin America and the Caribbean: A scoping review

Introduction

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID19) pandemic has struck Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) particularly hard. One of the crucial areas in the international community’s response relates to accelerating research and knowledge sharing. The aim of this article is to map and characterise the existing empirical research related to COVID-19 in LAC countries and contribute to identify opportunities for strengthening future research.

Methods

In this scoping review, articles published between December 2019 and 11 November 2020 were selected if they included an empirical component (explicit scientific methods to collect and analyse primary data), LAC population was researched, and the research was about the COVID-19 pandemic, regardless of publication status or language. MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, Scielo, CENTRAL and Epistemonikos were searched. All titles and abstracts, and full texts were screened by two independent reviewers. Data from included studies was extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second independent reviewer.

Results

14,406 records were found. After removing duplicates, 5,458 titles and abstracts were screened, of which 2,323 full texts were revised to finally include 1,626 empirical studies. The largest portion of research came from people/population of Brazil (54.6%), Mexico (19.1%), Colombia (11.2%), Argentina (10.4%), Peru (10.3%) and Chile (10%), while Caribbean countries concentrated 15.3%. The methodologies most used were cross-sectional studies (34.7%), simulation models (17.5%) and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (13.6%). Using a modified version of WHO’s COVID-19 Coordinated Global Research Roadmap classification, 54.2% were epidemiological studies, followed by clinical management (22.3%) and candidate therapeutics (12.2%). Government and public funds support were reported in 19.2% of studies, followed by universities or research centres (9%), but 47.5% did not include any funding statement.

Conclusion

During the first part of the COVID-19 pandemic, LAC countries have contributed to the global research effort primarily with epidemiological studies, with little participation on vaccines research, meaning that this type of knowledge would be imported from elsewhere. Research agendas could be further coordinated aiming to enhance shared self-sufficiency regarding knowledge needs in the region.

Combining meta-epidemiological study datasets on commercial funding of randomised clinical trials: Database, methods, and descriptive results of the COMFIT study

Randomised trials are often funded by commercial companies and methodological studies support a widely held suspicion that commercial funding may influence trial results and conclusions. However, these studies often have a risk of confounding and reporting bias. The risk of confounding is markedly reduced in meta-epidemiological studies that compare fairly similar trials within meta-analyses, and risk of reporting bias is reduced with access to unpublished data. Therefore, we initiated the COMmercial Funding In Trials (COMFIT) study aimed at investigating the impact of commercial funding on estimated intervention effects in randomised clinical trials based on a consortium of researchers who agreed to share meta-epidemiological study datasets with information on meta-analyses and trials included in meta-epidemiological studies. Here, we describe the COMFIT study, its database, and descriptive results. We included meta-epidemiological studies with published or unpublished data on trial funding source and results or conclusions. We searched five bibliographic databases and other sources. We invited authors of eligible meta-epidemiological studies to join the COMFIT consortium and to share data. The final construction of the COMFIT database involves checking data quality, identifying trial references, harmonising variable categories, and removing non-informative meta-analyses as well as correlated meta-analyses and trial results. We included data from 17 meta-epidemiological studies, covering 728 meta-analyses and 6841 trials. Seven studies (405 meta-analyses, 3272 trials) had not published analyses on the impact of commercial funding, but shared unpublished data on funding source. On this basis, we initiated the construction of a combined database. Once completed, the database will enable comprehensive analyses of the impact of commercial funding on trial results and conclusions with increased statistical power and a markedly reduced risk of confounding and reporting bias.

Pragmatic patient engagement in designing pragmatic oncology clinical trials

Oncology trials are the cornerstone of effective and safe therapeutic discoveries. However, there is increasing demand for pragmatism and patient engagement in the design, implementation and dissemination of oncology trials. Many researchers are uncertain about making trials more practical and even less knowledgeable about how to meaningfully engage patients without compromising scientific rigor to meet regulatory requirements. The present work provides practical guidance for addressing both pragmaticism and meaningful patient engagement. Applying evidence-based approaches like PRECIS-2-tool and the 10-Step Engagement Framework offer practical guidance to make future trials in oncology truly pragmatic and patient-centered. Consequently, such patient-centered trials have improved participation, faster recruitment and greater retention, and uptake of innovative technologies in community-based care.

A review of pragmatic trials found a high degree of diversity in design and scope, deficiencies in reporting and trial registry data, and poor indexing

OBJECTIVE

We established a large database of trials to serve as a resource for future methodological and ethical analyses. Here, we use meta-data to describe the broad landscape of pragmatic trials including research areas, identification as pragmatic, quality of trial registry data and enrolment.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Trials were identified by a validated search filter and included if a primary report of a health-related randomized trial published January 2014-April 2019. Data were collated from MEDLINE, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and full text.

RESULTS

4337 eligible trials were identified from 13,065 records, of which 1988 were registered in ClinicalTrials.gov. Research areas were diverse, with the most common being general and internal medicine; public, environmental and occupational health; and health care sciences and services. The term "pragmatic" was seldom used in titles or abstracts. Several domains in ClinicalTrials.gov had questionable data quality. We estimated that one-fifth of trials under-accrued by at least 15%.

CONCLUSION

There is a need to improve reporting of pragmatic trials and quality of trial registry data. Under accrual remains a challenge in pragmatic RCTs despite calls for more streamlined recruitment approaches. The diversity of pragmatic trials should be reflected in future ethical analyses.

Influence of Sponsorship Bias on Treatment Effect Size Estimates in Randomized Trials of Oral Health Interventions: A Meta-epidemiological Study

BACKGROUND

In this meta-epidemiological study, we aimed to examine associations between treatment effect size estimates and sponsorship bias in oral health randomized clinical trials.

METHODS

We selected oral health related meta-analyses that included a minimum of five randomized controlled trials. We extracted data, in duplicate, related to influence of sponsorship bias. We quantified the extent of bias associated with influence of sponsorship on the magnitude of effect size estimates of continuous variables using a two-level meta-meta-analytic approach with random-effects models to allow for intra- and inter-meta-analysis heterogeneity.

RESULTS

We initially identified 540 randomized trials included in 64 meta-analyses. Risk of sponsorship bias was judged as being "unclear" in 72.8% (n = 393) of the trials, while it was assessed as "low" in 16.7% (n = 90) and as "high" in 10.6% (n = 57) of the trials. Using a meta-epidemiological analysis (37 meta-analyses, including 328 trials that analyzed 85,934 patients), we identified statistically significant larger treatment effect size estimates in trials that had "high or unclear" risk of sponsorship bias (difference in treatment effect size estimates=0.10; 95% confidence intervals: 0.02 to 0.19) than in trials that had "low" risk of sponsorship bias.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified significant differences in treatment effect size estimates between dental trials based on sponsorship bias. Treatment effect size estimates were 0.10 larger in trials with "high or unclear" risk of sponsorship bias.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Clinicians should have an adequate knowledge of sponsorship bias in a clinical trial and be able to estimate the degree to which the conclusions of a systematic review are synthesized and interpreted, based on trials with low risk of sponsorship bias.

Identifying competing interest disclosures in systematic reviews of surgical interventions and devices: a cross-sectional survey

Background

A competing interest is an important source of bias in research and disclosure is frequently employed as a strategy to manage it. Considering the importance of systematic reviews (SRs) and the varying prevalence of competing interests in different research fields, we conducted a survey to identify the range of competing interests in SRs assessing surgical interventions or devices and explored the association between the competing interest disclosures and authors’ conclusions.

Methods

We retrieved SRs of surgical interventions and devices published in 2017 via PubMed. Information regarding general characteristics, funding sources, and competing interest disclosures were extracted. We conducted a descriptive analysis of the studies’ characteristics and compared them between Cochrane SRs (CSRs) and non-Cochrane SRs using the Chi-square test. Results were expressed as odds ratio and their 95% confidence interval.

Results

One hundred fifty-five SRs published in 2017 were included in the study. More than half of the SRs (58.7%) reported their funding sources and 94.2% reported authors’ competing interest disclosures. Among 146 SRs that stated competing interest disclosures, only 35 (22.6%) SRs declared at least one author had a competing interest. More than 40 terms were used to describe competing interests. Cochrane SRs (CSRs) were more likely to provide a detailed description of competing interests compared to those in non-CSRs (48.0% versus 25.4%, P = 0.023). No association between positive conclusions and competing interest disclosures was found (P = 0.484, OR = 0.43, 95%CI: 0.08, 2.16). In the subgroup analyses, SRs stating no competing interest disclosure were more likely to report positive conclusions than those stating at least one type of competing interest, but the difference is not significantly different (P = 0.406, OR = 1.38, 95%CI: 0.64, 2.98).

Conclusion

In surgical SRs, there is a high percentage of competing interest disclosures but without detailed information. The identification and statement of competing interests with a detailed description, particularly the non-financial ones, needs improvement. Some efficient and effective methods/tools for identifying, quantifying, and minimizing potential competing interests in systematic reviews remains valuable.

Does Type of Sponsorship of Randomized Controlled Trials Influence Treatment Effect Size Estimates in Rehabilitation: A Meta-Epidemiological Study

BACKGROUND

Sponsorship bias could affect research results to inform decision makers when using the results of these trials. The extent to which sponsorship bias affect results in the field of physical therapy has been unexplored in the literature. Therefore, the main aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of sponsorship bias on the treatment effects of randomized controlled trials in physical therapy area.

METHODS

This was a meta-epidemiological study. A random sample of randomized controlled trials included in meta-analyses of physical therapy area were identified. Data extraction including assessments of appropriate influence of funders was conducted independently by two reviewers. To determine the association between biases related to sponsorship biases and effect sizes, a two-level analysis was conducted using a meta-meta-analytic approach.

RESULTS

We analyzed 393 trials included in 43 meta-analyses. The most common sources of sponsorship for this sample of physical therapy trials were government (n = 205, 52%), followed by academic (n = 44, 11%) and industry (n = 39, 10%). The funding was not declared in a high percentage of the trials (n = 85, 22%). The influence of the trial sponsor was assessed as being appropriate in 246 trials (63%) and considered inappropriate/unclear in 147 (37%) of them. We have moderate evidence to say that trials with inappropriate/unclear influence of funders tended to have on average a larger effect size than those with appropriate influence of funding (effect size = 0.15; 95% confidence interval = -0.03 to 0.33).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on our sample of physical therapy trials, it seems that most of the trials are funded by either government and academia and a small percentage are funded by the industry. Treatment effect size estimates were on average 0.15 larger in trials with lack of appropriate influence of funders as compared with trials with appropriate influence of funding. Contrarily to other fields, industry funding was relatively small and their influence perhaps less marked. All these results could be explained by the relative youth of the field and/or the absence of clear industry interests. In front of the call for action by the World Health Organization to strengthen rehabilitation in health systems, these results raise the issue of the need of public funding in the field.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): latest developments in potential treatments

Many viral respiratory infections can cause severe acute respiratory symptoms leading to mortality and morbidity. In the spring of 2003, the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak caused by SARS-CoV spread globally. In the summer of 2012, the Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) outbreak caused by MERS-CoV occurred in Saudi Arabia. In the winter of 2019, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak caused by a novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 occurred in China which rapidly spread worldwide causing a global pandemic. Up until 27 May 2020, there are 5.5 million confirmed cases of COVID-19 and 347,587 COVID-19 related deaths worldwide, and there has also been an unprecedented increase in socioeconomic and psychosocial issues related to COVID-19. This overview aims to review the current developments in preventive treatments and therapies for COVID-19. The development of vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 is ongoing and various clinical trials are currently underway around the world. It is hoped that existing antivirals including remdesivir and lopinavir-ritonavir might have roles in the treatment of COVID-19, but results from trials thus far have not been promising. COVID-19 causes a mild respiratory disease in the majority of cases, but in some cases, cytokine activation causes sepsis and acute respiratory distress syndrome, leading to morbidity and mortality. Immunomodulatory treatments and biologics are also being actively explored as therapeutics for COVID-19. On the other hand, the use of steroidal and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) has been discouraged based on concerns about their adverse effects. Over the past two decades, coronaviruses have caused major epidemics and outbreaks worldwide, whilst modern medicine has been playing catch-up all along.

Quality, scope and reporting standards of randomised controlled trials in Irish Health Research: an observational study

Background

Despite efforts to improve the accuracy and transparency of the design, conduct, and reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), deficiencies remain. Such deficiencies contribute to significant, avoidable waste of health research investment and impede reproducibility. This study aimed to synthesise and critically analyse changes over time in the conduct and reporting of internationally published evidence on patient and/or population health-oriented RCTs conducted in one country.

Methods

This observational study drew on systematic review methods. We searched six databases for published RCTs (database inception to December 2018) where ≥ 80% of participants were recruited in the Republic of Ireland. RCTs of interventions targeted at patients, providers and/or policy makers intended to improve health, healthcare or health research were included. For each study, screening, data extraction and methodological quality appraisal were conducted by one member of the author team.

Results

From 17,560 titles and abstracts, 752 unique RCTs were published in 745 papers between 1968 and 2018, with a steady year-on-year increase since 1968. The number of participants was in the range of 2–8628. The majority were parallel design (86%) and classified as treatment evaluation. Of the 418 RCTs published since the introduction of mandatory clinical trial registration by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors in 2005, 32% (n = 134) provided a trial registration number. This increased to 47% when taking studies published between 2013 and 2018 (n = 232). Since the 1996 publication of the CONSORT statement, 16% of included RCTs made specific reference to a standardised reporting guideline and this increased to 31% for more recent studies published between 2013 and 2018. Overall, 7% (n = 53) of studies referred to a published study protocol, increasing to 20% for studies published between 2013 and 2018.

Conclusion

Evidence from this single-country study of RCTs published in the international literature suggests that both the number overall, the number registered and the number referencing reporting guidelines have increased steadily over time. Despite widespread endorsement of reporting standards, reporting of RCTs remains suboptimal in domains such as compliance with the CONSORT statement and prospective trial registration. Researchers, funders and journal editors, nationally and internationally, should continue to focus on improving reporting and examining avoidable waste of health research investment.

Assessing the Quality of Abstracts in Randomized Controlled Trials Published in High Impact Cardiovascular Journals

BACKGROUND

In the busy world of cardiovascular medicine, abstracts may be the only part of a publication that clinicians read. Therefore, it is critical for abstracts to accurately reflect article content. The extended CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) Statement for Abstracts was developed to ensure high abstract quality. However, it is unknown how often adherence to CONSORT guidelines occurs among cardiovascular journals.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We searched MEDLINE for randomized controlled trials published in 3 major cardiovascular journals ( Circulation, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, and European Heart Journal) from 2011 to 2017. Post hoc, interim, and cost-effective analyses of randomized controlled trials were excluded. Two independent investigators extracted the data using a prespecified data collection form and a third investigator adjudicated the data. The primary outcome was frequency of subcategory adherence to CONSORT guidelines. A total of 478 abstracts were included in the analysis. Approximately half of the abstracts (53%; 255/478; 95% CI, 49%-57%) identified the article as randomized in the title. All abstracts detailed the interventions for both study groups (100%) and 81% (95% CI, 78%-85%) reported trial registration. Methodological quality reporting was relatively low: 9% (45/478; 95% CI, 6%-12%) described participant eligibility criteria with settings for data collection, 43% (204/478; 95% CI, 39%-47%) reported details of blinding, and <1% (4/478; 95% CI, 0%-2%) reported allocation concealment. Approximately 60% (301/478; 95% CI, 59%-67%) of the included abstracts provided primary outcome results while 55% (262/478; 95% CI, 51%-60%) reported harms or adverse effects.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a high prevalence of nonadherence to CONSORT guidelines among leading cardiovascular journals. Efforts by editors, authors, and reviewers should be made to increase adherence and promote transparent and unbiased presentation of study results.

The association between registration status and reported outcomes in physiotherapy randomised controlled trials

Background/Aims

Clinical trial registration has been proposed as a method of mitigating selective reporting in scientific research. It remains unknown whether trial registration is associated with reported outcomes in physiotherapy trials. This study aimed to analyse the association between registration status and outcome (the rejection or acceptance of a primary null hypothesis) for physiotherapy randomised controlled trials.

Methods

All randomised controlled trials reporting a physiotherapy intervention in publications listed in PubMed between 1 January 2017 and 30 June 2017 were included. Trial registration was determined based on the reporting of a registration number in the primary article or by identifying trials through trial registries.

Results

Of the 291 trials analysed, 176 (60.5%) were registered; 115 (39.5%) were not. There was no significant association between trial registration and outcome on multivariate analyses (Odds Ratio 1.65; 95% Confidence Interval (0.92–2.96); P=0.09). Only 22% of trials were prospectively registered.

Conclusions

Registration status and trial outcome are not associated in randomised controlled trials of physiotherapy interventions. The rate of physiotherapy trial registration remains low.

Challenging traditional research: A synopsis of the National Research Collaborative Meeting (NRCM) in 2017

Introduction

The National Research Collaborative Meeting (NRCM) 2017 was jointly hosted between the West Midlands Research Collaborative (WMRC) and Student Audit and Research in Surgery (STARSurg) on 30th November 2017 in Birmingham. The NRCM 2017 theme was ‘Challenging Traditional Research’.

Methods

Narrative review, outlining key challenges and recommendations for trainee collaborative research groups across medical and surgical disciplines based on the core themes from the NRCM 2017 meeting.

Results

Core themes of: (1) surgical oncology trials; (2) placebo-controlled surgical trials; (3) research funding; (4) medical student involvement in research; (5) emergency care; (6) patient and public involvement. Recommendations were made for planning future collaborative studies, based on these topic areas.

Conclusions

The collaborative research model has demonstrated longevity and effectiveness in delivering high-quality, practice-changing research both within the NHS and internationally. Learning between groups and highlighting areas for interdisciplinary collaboration will drive a meaningful, patient-centred agenda for the future.

Systematic review finds that appraisal tools for medical research studies address conflicts of interest superficially

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to identify and summarize 1) appraisal tools and other guides which address conflicts of interest in medical research studies; and 2) top journals with policies on managing conflicts of interest in journal papers.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We searched bibliographic databases, other sources, and websites of 30 top medical journals. Two authors selected documents and extracted data.

RESULTS

We included 27 appraisal tools. None were designed specifically for addressing conflicts of interest and they included only 1-2 short items on conflicts of interest. We also included eight other types of guides. Of 27 appraisal tools, 23 addressed study funding, and 19 authors' conflicts of interest. Nine tools addressed availability of conflicts of interest information, 13 reported conflicts of interest, and five influence from conflicts of interest. Twelve of 30 top journals had conflicts of interest managing policies (beyond disclosure). One journal restricted nonresearch papers (e.g., editorials) to authors without financial conflicts of interest and ten only restricted under certain circumstances.

CONCLUSION

Appraisal tools that address conflicts of interest typically do so superficially and rarely address how conflicts of interest may influence studies. Less than half of top medical journals have explicit policies on managing conflicts of interest.

Recent Advances in the Vaccine Development Against Middle East Respiratory Syndrome-Coronavirus

Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) is a deadly viral respiratory disease caused by MERS-coronavirus (MERS-CoV) infection. To date, there is no specific treatment proven effective against this viral disease. In addition, no vaccine has been licensed to prevent MERS-CoV infection thus far. Therefore, our current review focuses on the most recent studies in search of an effective MERS vaccine. Overall, vaccine candidates against MERS-CoV are mainly based upon the viral spike (S) protein, due to its vital role in the viral infectivity, although several studies focused on other viral proteins such as the nucleocapsid (N) protein, envelope (E) protein, and non-structural protein 16 (NSP16) have also been reported. In general, the potential vaccine candidates can be classified into six types: viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, nanoparticle-based vaccine, inactivated-whole virus vaccine and live-attenuated vaccine, which are discussed in detail. Besides, the immune responses and potential antibody dependent enhancement of MERS-CoV infection are extensively reviewed. In addition, animal models used to study MERS-CoV and evaluate the vaccine candidates are discussed intensively.

Cell-Based Therapies for Stroke: Are We There Yet?

Stroke is the second leading cause of death and physical disability, with a global lifetime incidence rate of 1 in 6. Currently, the only FDA approved treatment for ischemic stroke is the administration of tissue plasminogen activator (tPA). Stem cell clinical trials for stroke have been underway for close to two decades, with data suggesting that cell therapies are safe, feasible, and potentially efficacious. However, clinical trials for stroke account for <1% of all stem cell trials. Nevertheless, the resources devoted to clinical research to identify new treatments for stroke is still significant (53–64 million US$, Phase 1–4). Notably, a quarter of cell therapy clinical trials for stroke have been withdrawn (15.2%) or terminated (6.8%) to date. This review discusses the bottlenecks in delivering a successful cell therapy for stroke, and the cost-to-benefit ratio necessary to justify these expensive trials. Further, this review will critically assess the currently available data from completed stroke trials, the importance of standardization in outcome reporting, and the role of industry-led research in the development of cell therapies for stroke.

Open access policies of leading medical journals: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

Academical and not-for-profit research funders are increasingly requiring that the research they fund must be published open access, with some insisting on publishing with a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence to allow the broadest possible use. We aimed to clarify the open access variants provided by leading medical journals and record the availability of the CC BY licence for commercially funded research.

METHODS

We identified medical journals with a 2015 impact factor of ≥15.0 on 24 May 2017, then excluded from the analysis journals that only publish review articles. Between 29 June 2017 and 26 July 2017, we collected information about each journal's open access policies from their websites and/or by email contact. We contacted the journals by email again between 6 December 2017 and 2 January 2018 to confirm our findings.

RESULTS

Thirty-five medical journals publishing original research from 13 publishers were included in the analysis. All 35 journals offered some form of open access allowing articles to be free-to-read, either immediately on publication or after a delay of up to 12 months. Of these journals, 21 (60%) provided immediate open access with a CC BY licence under certain circumstances (eg, to specific research funders). Of these 21, 20 only offered a CC BY licence to authors funded by non-commercial organisations and one offered this option to any funder who required it.

CONCLUSIONS

Most leading medical journals do not offer to authors reporting commercially funded research an open access licence that allows unrestricted sharing and adaptation of the published material. The journals' policies are therefore not aligned with open access declarations and guidelines. Commercial research funders lag behind academical funders in the development of mandatory open access policies, and it is time for them to work with publishers to advance the dissemination of the research they fund.

Industry-funded versus non-profit-funded critical care research: a meta-epidemiological overview

Purpose

To study the landscape of funding in intensive care research and assess whether the reported outcomes of industry-funded randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are more favorable.

Methods

We systematically assembled meta-analyses evaluating any type of intervention in the critical care setting and reporting the source of funding for each included RCT. Furthermore, when the intervention was a drug or biologic, we searched also the original RCT articles, when their funding information was unavailable in the meta-analysis. We then qualitatively summarized the sources of funding. For binary outcomes, separate summary odds ratios were calculated for trials with and without industry funding. We then calculated the ratio of odds ratios (RORs) and the summary ROR (sROR) across topics. ROR < 1 implies that the experimental intervention is relatively more favorable in trials with industry funding compared with trials without industry funding. For RCTs included in the ROR analysis, we also examined the conclusions of their abstract.

Results

Across 67 topics with 568 RCTs, 88 were funded by industry and another 73 had both industry and non-profit funding. Across 33 topics with binary outcomes, the sROR was 1.10 [95% CI (0.96–1.26), I² = 1%]. Conclusions were not significantly more commonly unfavorable for the experimental arm interventions in industry-funded trials (21.3%) compared with trials without industry funding (18.2%).

Conclusion

Industry-funded RCTs are the minority in intensive care. We found no evidence that industry-funded trials in intensive care yield more favorable results or are less likely to reach unfavorable conclusions.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00134-018-5325-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The reporting of funding in health policy and systems research: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Major research-reporting statements, such as PRISMA and CONSORT, require authors to provide information about funding. The objectives of this study were (1) to assess the reporting of funding in health policy and systems research (HPSR) papers and (2) to assess the funding reporting policies of journals publishing on HPSR.

METHODS

We conducted two cross-sectional surveys for papers published in 2016 addressing HPSR (both primary studies and systematic reviews) and for journals publishing on HPSR (both journals under the 'Health Policy and Services' (HPS) category in the Web of Science, and non-HPS journals that published on HPSR). Teams of two reviewers selected studies and abstracted data in duplicate and independently. We conducted descriptive analyses and a regression analysis to investigate the association between reporting of funding by papers and the journal's characteristics.

RESULTS

We included 400 studies (200 systematic reviews and 200 primary studies) that were published in 198 journals. Approximately one-third (31%) of HPSR papers did not report on funding. Of those that did, only 11% reported on the role of funders (15% of systematic reviews and 7% of primary studies). Of the 198 journals publishing on HPSR, 89% required reporting of the source of funding. Of those that did, about one-third (34%) required reporting of the role of funders. Journals classified under the HPS category (n = 72) were less likely than non-HPS journals that published HPSR studies (n = 142) to require information on the role of funders (15% vs. 32%). We did not find any of the journals' characteristics to be associated with the reporting of funding by papers.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the majority of journals publishing on HPSR requiring the reporting of funding, approximately one-third of HPSR papers did not report on the funding source. Moreover, few journals publishing on HPSR required the reporting of the role of funders, and few HPSR papers reported on that role.