Dataset Information

Compliance of clinical trial registries with the World Health Organization minimum data set: a survey.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Since September 2005 the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors has required that trials be registered in accordance with the World Health Organization (WHO) minimum dataset, in order to be considered for publication. The objective is to evaluate registries' and individual trial records' compliance with the 2006 version of the WHO minimum data set.

Methods

A retrospective evaluation of 21 online clinical trial registries (international, national, specialty, pharmaceutical industry and local) from April 2005 to February 2007 and a cross-sectional evaluation of a stratified random sample of 610 trial records from the 21 registries.

Results

Among 11 registries that provided guidelines for registration, the median compliance with the WHO criteria were 14 out of 20 items (range 6 to 20). In the period April 2005-February 2007, six registries increased their compliance by six data items, on average. None of the local registry websites published guidelines on the trial data items required for registration. Slightly more than half (330/610; 54.1%, 95% CI 50.1% - 58.1%) of trial records completed the contact details criteria while 29.7% (181/610, 95% CI 26.1% - 33.5%) completed the key clinical and methodological data fields.

Conclusion

While the launch of the WHO minimum data set seemed to positively influence registries with better standardisation of approaches, individual registry entries are largely incomplete. Initiatives to ensure quality assurance of registries and trial data should be encouraged. Peer reviewers and editors should scrutinise clinical trial registration records to ensure consistency with WHO's core content requirements when considering trial-related publications.

SUBMITTER: Moja LP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2734552 | biostudies-literature | 2009 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Compliance of clinical trial registries with the World Health Organization minimum data set: a survey.

Moja Lorenzo P LP Moschetti Ivan I Nurbhai Munira M Compagnoni Anna A Liberati Alessandro A Grimshaw Jeremy M JM Chan An-Wen AW Dickersin Kay K Krleza-Jeric Karmela K Moher David D Sim Ida I Volmink Jimmy J

Trials 20090722

<h4>Background</h4>Since September 2005 the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors has required that trials be registered in accordance with the World Health Organization (WHO) minimum dataset, in order to be considered for publication. The objective is to evaluate registries' and individual trial records' compliance with the 2006 version of the WHO minimum data set.<h4>Methods</h4>A retrospective evaluation of 21 online clinical trial registries (international, national, specialty, ...[more]

PMID: 19624821

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe minimum data set (MDS) is a collection of data elements to be grouped using a standard approach to allow the use of data for clinical and research purposes. Health data are typically voluminous, complex, and sometimes too ambiguous to generate indicators that can provide knowledge and information on health. This complexity extends further to the rare disease (RD) domain. MDSs are essential for health surveillance as they help provide services and generate recommended population indicators. There is a bottleneck in international literature that reveals a global problem with data collection, recording, and structuring in RD.ObjectiveThis study aimed to identify and analyze the MDSs used for RD in health care networks worldwide and compare them with World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines.MethodsThe population, concept, and context methodology proposed by the Joanna Briggs Institute was used to define the research question of this systematic review. A total of 4 databases were reviewed, and all the processes were reported using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) methodology. The data elements were analyzed, extracted, and organized into 10 categories according to WHO digital health guidelines. The quality assessment used the STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) checklist.ResultsWe included 20 studies in our review, 70% (n=14) of which focused on a specific health domain and 30% (n=6) of which referred to RD in general. WHO recommends that health systems and networks use standard terminology to exchange data, information, knowledge, and intelligence in health. However, there was a lack of terminological standardization of the concepts in MDSs. Moreover, the selected studies did not follow the same standard structure for classifying the data from their MDSs. All studies presented MDSs with limitations or restrictions because they covered only a specific RD, or their scope of application was restricted to a specific context or geographic region. Data science methods and clinical experience were used to design, structure, and recommend a fundamental global MDS for RD patient records in health care networks.ConclusionsOur study highlights the difficulties in standardizing and categorizing findings from MDSs for RD because of the varying structures used in different studies. The fundamental RD MDS designed in this study comprehensively covers the data needs in the clinical and management sectors. These results can help public policy makers support other aspects of their policies. We highlight the potential of our results to help strategic decisions related to RD.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42021221593; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=221593.International registered report identifier (irrid)RR2-10.1016/j.procs.2021.12.034.

Project description:BackgroundThis study aimed to evaluate the gap between guidelines and local clinical practice for diagnosis and treatment of uncomplicated and severe malaria, the patient characteristics, diagnostic approach, treatment, and compliance to standard guideline recommendations.MethodsThis was a multicentre, observational study conducted between October 2020 and March 2021 in which patients of all ages with symptoms suggestive of malaria and who visited a healthcare facility were prospectively enrolled in six countries in sub-Saharan Africa (The Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mozambique, Nigeria, Rwanda, The United Republic of Tanzania, and Zambia).ResultsOf 1001 enrolled patients, 735 (73.4%) patients had confirmed malaria (based on overall judgment by investigator) at baseline (uncomplicated malaria: 598 [81.4%] and severe malaria: 137 [18.6%]). Of the confirmed malaria patients, 533 (72.5%) were administered a malaria rapid diagnostic test. The median age of patients was 11 years (range: 2 weeks-91 years) with more patients coming from rural (44.9%) than urban (30.6%) or suburban areas (24.5%). At the community level, 57.8% of patients sought advice or received treatment for malaria and 56.9% of patients took one or more drugs for their illness before coming to the study site. In terms of early access to care, 44.1% of patients came to the study site for initial visit ≥ 48 h after symptom onset. In patients with uncomplicated malaria, the most prescribed treatments were artemisinin-based combination therapy (ACT; n = 564 [94.3%]), primarily using artemether-lumefantrine (82.3%), in line with the World Health Organization (WHO) treatment guidelines. In addition, these patients received antipyretics (85.6%) and antibiotics (42.0%). However, in those with severe malaria, only 66 (48.2%) patients received parenteral treatment followed by oral ACT as per WHO guidelines, whereas 62 (45.3%) received parenteral treatment only. After receiving ambulatory care, 88.6% of patients with uncomplicated malaria were discharged and 83.2% of patients with severe malaria were discharged after hospitalization. One patient with uncomplicated malaria having multiple co-morbidities and three patients with severe malaria died.ConclusionsThe findings of this study suggest that the prescribed treatment in most patients with uncomplicated malaria, but not of those with severe malaria, was in alignment with the WHO recommended guidelines.

Project description:BackgroundResearch in 2007 showed that World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations were largely based on expert opinion, rarely used systematic evidence-based methods, and did not follow the organization's own "Guidelines for Guidelines". In response, the WHO established a "Guidelines Review Committee" (GRC) to implement and oversee internationally recognized standards. We examined the impact of these changes on WHO guideline documents and explored senior staff's perceptions of the new procedures.Methods and findingsWe used the AGREE II guideline appraisal tool to appraise ten GRC-approved guidelines from nine WHO departments, and ten pre-GRC guidelines matched by department and topic. We interviewed 20 senior staff across 16 departments and analyzed the transcripts using the framework approach. Average AGREE II scores for GRC-approved guidelines were higher across all six AGREE domains compared with pre-GRC guidelines. The biggest changes were noted for "Rigour of Development" (up 37.6%, from 30.7% to 68.3%) and "Editorial Independence" (up 52.7%, from 20.9% to 73.6%). Four main themes emerged from the interviews: (1) high standards were widely recognized as essential for WHO credibility, particularly with regard to conflicts of interest; (2) views were mixed on whether WHO needed a single quality assurance mechanism, with some departments purposefully bypassing the procedures; (3) staff expressed some uncertainties in applying the GRADE approach, with departmental staff concentrating on technicalities while the GRC remained concerned the underlying principles were not fully institutionalized; (4) the capacity to implement the new standards varied widely, with many departments looking to an overstretched GRC for technical support.ConclusionsSince 2007, WHO guideline development methods have become more systematic and transparent. However, some departments are bypassing the procedures, and as yet neither the GRC, nor the quality assurance standards they have set, are fully embedded within the organization.

Dataset Information

Compliance of clinical trial registries with the World Health Organization minimum data set: a survey.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Compliance of clinical trial registries with the World Health Organization minimum data set: a survey.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets