Should protocols for observational research be registered?

The majority of observational studies in leading peer-reviewed medicine journals are not registered and do not have a publicly accessible protocol: a scoping review

OBJECTIVES

Observational studies are not subject to the same requirements as randomized controlled trials, such as registration or publishing a protocol. The aim of this scoping review was to estimate the registration rate of observational studies in leading peer-reviewed medicine journals and to evaluate whether protocols were available in the public domain.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

In March 2023, we searched OVID Medline for observational studies published in 2022 in the top five general medicine journals according to impact factor (The Lancet, The British Medical Journal (BMJ), The Journal of the American Medical Association, The New England Journal of Medicine, and Annals of Internal Medicine). We defined an observational study as a cohort study, a case-control study, a cross-sectional study, or a case series. Information on i) the proportion of observational studies that have been registered and ii) the proportion of observational studies that have a protocol available in the public domain was extracted from a random sample of studies.

RESULTS

Our search identified 699 studies; 290 studies were selected as full text, and a random sample of 200 studies was included. For half of the studies, the first author worked at a US institution. Most studies were cohort studies (n = 126, 63.0%) and used administrative healthcare records, electronic healthcare records, and registries. Of the 200 observational studies, 20 (10.0%) were registered. Among those, 14 were prospectively registered. Twenty-four studies (12.0%) had a protocol available in the public domain. Studies that were registered or had a protocol, were more frequently published in the BMJ (n = 12/28, 42.9%), had a first author working in the UK (n = 10/28, 35.7%) and used electronic health care records (n = 13/28, 46.4%) compared to studies with no registration and no protocol.

CONCLUSION

The rate of prospectively registered observational studies is worryingly low. Prospective registration of observational studies should be encouraged and standardized to ensure transparency in clinical research and reduce research waste.

Good practices for clinical data warehouse implementation: A case study in France

Real-world data (RWD) bears great promises to improve the quality of care. However, specific infrastructures and methodologies are required to derive robust knowledge and brings innovations to the patient. Drawing upon the national case study of the 32 French regional and university hospitals governance, we highlight key aspects of modern clinical data warehouses (CDWs): governance, transparency, types of data, data reuse, technical tools, documentation, and data quality control processes. Semi-structured interviews as well as a review of reported studies on French CDWs were conducted in a semi-structured manner from March to November 2022. Out of 32 regional and university hospitals in France, 14 have a CDW in production, 5 are experimenting, 5 have a prospective CDW project, 8 did not have any CDW project at the time of writing. The implementation of CDW in France dates from 2011 and accelerated in the late 2020. From this case study, we draw some general guidelines for CDWs. The actual orientation of CDWs towards research requires efforts in governance stabilization, standardization of data schema, and development in data quality and data documentation. Particular attention must be paid to the sustainability of the warehouse teams and to the multilevel governance. The transparency of the studies and the tools of transformation of the data must improve to allow successful multicentric data reuses as well as innovations in routine care.

Scientific Opinion of the PPR Panel on the follow-up of the findings of the External Scientific Report 'Literature review of epidemiological studies linking exposure to pesticides and health effects'

In 2013, EFSA published a comprehensive systematic review of epidemiological studies published from 2006 to 2012 investigating the association between pesticide exposure and many health outcomes. Despite the considerable amount of epidemiological information available, the quality of much of this evidence was rather low and many limitations likely affect the results so firm conclusions cannot be drawn. Studies that do not meet the 'recognised standards' mentioned in the Regulation (EU) No 1107/2009 are thus not suited for risk assessment. In this Scientific Opinion, the EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their residues (PPR Panel) was requested to assess the methodological limitations of pesticide epidemiology studies and found that poor exposure characterisation primarily defined the major limitation. Frequent use of case-control studies as opposed to prospective studies was considered another limitation. Inadequate definition or deficiencies in health outcomes need to be avoided and reporting of findings could be improved in some cases. The PPR Panel proposed recommendations on how to improve the quality and reliability of pesticide epidemiology studies to overcome these limitations and to facilitate an appropriate use for risk assessment. The Panel recommended the conduct of systematic reviews and meta-analysis, where appropriate, of pesticide observational studies as useful methodology to understand the potential hazards of pesticides, exposure scenarios and methods for assessing exposure, exposure-response characterisation and risk characterisation. Finally, the PPR Panel proposed a methodological approach to integrate and weight multiple lines of evidence, including epidemiological data, for pesticide risk assessment. Biological plausibility can contribute to establishing causation.

Improving Concordance in Environmental Epidemiology: A Three-Part Proposal

In observational research, evidence is usually derived from multiple studies, and any single result is rarely considered sufficient for public health decision making. Despite more than five decades of research and thousands of studies published, the ability to draw robust conclusions regarding the presence or absence of causal links between specific environmental exposures and human health remains limited. To develop policies that are protective of public health and can withstand scrutiny, agencies need to rely on investigations of satisfactory quality that follow sufficiently concordant protocols in terms of exposure assessment, outcome ascertainment, data analysis, and reporting of results. Absent such concordance, the ability of environmental epidemiology studies to inform decision making is greatly diminished. Systems and tools are proposed here to improve concordance among environmental epidemiology studies. Specifically, working systems in place in other fields of research are critically examined and used as guidelines to develop analogous policies and procedures for environmental epidemiology. A three-part path forward toward more concordant, transparent, and readily accessible environmental epidemiology evidence that parallels ongoing efforts in medical research is proposed. The three parts address methods for improving quality and accessibility of systematic reviews, access to information on ongoing and completed studies, and principles for reporting. The goals are to increase the value of epidemiological research in public health decision making and to stimulate discussions around solutions proposed herein.

Evidence-based practice for rehabilitation professionals: concepts and controversies

This article describes evidence-based practice (EBP) in the health professions and sciences in general and in the rehabilitation disciplines specifically. It discusses the following: what counts as evidence and how that has changed over the last 4 decades, trends in the short history of evidence-based medicine and EBP, the fallacious nature of most criticisms of EBP, (perceived) shortcomings of clinical research and the resulting evidence in rehabilitation, resources available to clinicians who want their practice to be evidence-based, and the barriers these clinicians face in keeping up with the evidence and applying it in practice. Lastly, it describes how the development of a new art and science, knowledge translation, may play a role in truly making EBP feasible in rehabilitation services.