Dataset Information

ASSIST applicability scoring of surgical trials. an investigator-reported assessment tool.

ABSTRACT:

Context

We aimed to develop a new tool for assessing and depicting the applicability of the results of surgical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from the trial investigators' perspective.

Methods

We identified all items related to applicability by a systematic methodological review, and then a sample of surgeons used these items in a web-based survey to evaluate the applicability of their own trial results. For each applicability item, participants had to indicate on a numerical scale that was simplified as a three-item scale: 1) items essential to consider, 2) items requiring attention, and 3) items inconsequential to the applicability of the results of their own RCT to clinical practice. For the final tool, we selected only items that were rated as being essential or requiring attention for at least 25% of the trials evaluated. We propose a specific process to construct the tool and to depict applicability in a graph. We identified all investigators of published and registered ongoing RCTs assessing surgery and invited them to participate in the web-based survey.

Results

148 surgeons assessed applicability for their own trial and participated in the process of item selection. The final tool contains 22 items (4 dedicated to patients, 5 to centers, 5 to surgeons and 8 to the intervention). We proposed a straightforward process of constructing the graphical tool: 1) a multidisciplinary team of investigators or other care providers participating in the trial could independently assess each item, 2) a consensus method could be used, and 3) the investigators could depict their assessment of the applicability of the trial results in 4 graphs related to patients, centers, surgeons and the intervention.

Conclusions

This investigator-reported assessment tool could help readers define under what conditions they could reasonably apply the results of a surgical RCT to their clinical practice.

SUBMITTER: Tourabaly I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3419723 | biostudies-literature | 2012

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

ASSIST applicability scoring of surgical trials. an investigator-reported assessment tool.

Tourabaly Idriss I Boutron Isabelle I Nizard Rémy R Ravaud Philippe P

PloS one 20120815 8

<h4>Context</h4>We aimed to develop a new tool for assessing and depicting the applicability of the results of surgical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from the trial investigators' perspective.<h4>Methods</h4>We identified all items related to applicability by a systematic methodological review, and then a sample of surgeons used these items in a web-based survey to evaluate the applicability of their own trial results. For each applicability item, participants had to indicate on a numerica ...[more]

PMID: 22916125

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundStatistics are frequently used in health advocacy to attract attention, but are often misinterpreted. The Figure Interpretation Assessment Tool-Health (FIAT-Health) 1.0 was developed to support systematic assessment of the interpretation of figures on health and health care. This study aimed to test and evaluate the FIAT-Health 1.0 amongst its intended user groups, and further refine the tool based on our results.MethodsPotential users (N?=?32) were asked to assess one publicly reported figure using the FIAT-Health 1.0, and to justify their assessments and share their experience in using the FIAT-Health. In total four figures were assessed. For each figure, an expert on the specific topic (N?=?4) provided a comparative assessment. The consistency of the answers was calculated, and answers to the evaluation questions were qualitatively analysed. A qualitative comparative analysis of the justifications for assessment by the experts and potential users was made. Based on the results, a new version of the FIAT-Health was developed and tested by employees (N?=?27) of the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), and approved by the project's advisory group. In total sixty-three participants contributed.ResultsPotential users using the FIAT-Health 1.0 and experts gave similar justifications for their assessments. The justifications provided by experts aligned with the items of the FIAT-Health. Seventeen out of twenty-six dichotomous questions were consistently answered by the potential users. Numerical assessment questions showed inconsistencies in how potential users responded. In the evaluation, potential users most frequently mentioned that thanks to its structured approach, the FIAT-Health contributed to their awareness of the main characteristics of the figure (n?=?14), but they did find the tool complex (n?=?11). The FIAT-Health 1.0 was revised from a scoring instrument into a critical appraisal tool: the FIAT-Health 2.0, which was tested and approved by employees of the RIVM and the advisory group.ConclusionThe tool was refined according to the results of the test and evaluation, transforming the FIAT-Health from a quantitative scoring instrument into an online qualitative appraisal tool that has the potential to aid the better interpretation and public reporting of statistics on health and healthcare.

Project description:ImportanceWhile wide-scale adoption of durable left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) can be attributed to favorable randomized clinical trial outcomes, restrictive selection criteria may be associated with a lack of generalizability to real-world experience.ObjectiveTo estimate the proportion of LVAD recipients who are eligible for clinical trials and to assess whether an association exists between trial eligibility and mortality.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study examined 14 679 patients undergoing primary, intracorporeal continuous-flow LVAD implantation (with or without a right ventricular assist device) in 181 North American centers from January 1, 2012, to June 30, 2017, identified in the Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS). To simulate a trial population, trial criteria from the Multicenter Study of MagLev Technology in Patients Undergoing Mechanical Circulatory Therapy With HeartMate 3 (MOMENTUM 3) were mapped to INTERMACS variables. Patients were categorized as eligible for trial inclusion or ineligible for trial inclusion and by number of ineligibility criteria met. Follow-up in INTERMACS was complete for all patients through October 31, 2017. Data were analyzed from July 2019 through November 2020.ExposuresUndergoing durable LVAD implantation.Main outcomes and measuresTrial eligibility and postimplant mortality were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox proportional hazards models.ResultsAmong 14 679 recipients, mean (SD) age was 57 (13) years, 11 503 individuals (78.4%) were men, and 11 406 individuals (77.7%) presented with New York Heart Association class IV heart failure. A total of 6429 recipients (43.8%) were ineligible for trial inclusion, of whom 4226 individuals (65.7%) met 1 ineligibility criterion, 1442 individuals (22.4%) met 2 criteria, and 761 individuals (11.8%) met 3 or more criteria. Estimated mortality for recipients who were trial-ineligible was higher than for recipients who were trial-eligible (1-year mortality: 25.3% [95% CI, 24.2%-26.5%] vs 16.2% [95% CI, 15.4%-17.1%]; 3-year mortality: 42.8% [95% CI, 41.3%-44.4%] vs 36.4% [95% CI, 35.0%-37.8%]; log-rank P < .001 for both). Patients who were trial-ineligible had increased risk of mortality compared with patients who were trial-eligible if they met 1 trial ineligibility criterion (hazard ratio [HR], 1.16 [95% CI, 1.08-1.24]; P < .001), 2 trial ineligibility criteria (HR, 1.51 [95% CI, 1.36-1.67]; P < .001), or 3 or more trial ineligibility criteria (HR, 2.09 [95% CI, 1.84-2.39]; P < .001). Among patients meeting only 1 ineligibility criterion, 4 criteria were independently associated with mortality: prior or ongoing mechanical circulatory support (HR, 1.63 [95% CI, 1.23-2.16]; P = .001), elevated creatinine level (HR, 1.42 [95% CI, 1.17-1.72]; P < .001), elevated bilirubin level (HR, 1.39 [95% CI, 1.17-1.66]; P < .001), and low albumin or prealbumin level (HR, 1.18 [95% CI, 1.05-1.33]; P = .007).Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that while treatment for patients who are ineligible for LVAD trial inclusion should be weighed against medical management, more consideration could be given to designing trials with eligibility criteria that reflect real-world experience.

Project description:BackgroundHealthcare decisions are ideally based on clinical trial results, published in study registries, as journal articles or summarized in secondary research articles. In this research project, we investigated the impact of academically and commercially sponsored clinical trials on medical practice by measuring the proportion of trials published and cited by systematic reviews and clinical guidelines.MethodsWe examined 691 multicenter, randomized controlled trials that started in 2005 or later and were completed by the end of 2016. To determine whether sponsorship/funding and place of conduct influence a trial's impact, we created four sub-cohorts of investigator initiated trials (IITs) and industry sponsored trials (ISTs): 120 IITs and 171 ISTs with German contribution compared to 200 IITs and 200 ISTs without German contribution. We balanced the groups for study phase and place of conduct. German IITs were funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG), the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), or by another non-commercial research organization. All other trials were drawn from the German Clinical Trials Register or ClinicalTrials.gov. We investigated, to what extent study characteristics were associated with publication and impact using multivariable logistic regressions.ResultsFor 80% of the 691 trials, results were published as result articles in a medical journal and/or study registry, 52% were cited by a systematic review, and 26% reached impact in a clinical guideline. Drug trials and larger trials were associated with a higher probability to be published and to have an impact than non-drug trials and smaller trials. Results of IITs were more often published as a journal article while results of ISTs were more often published in study registries. International ISTs less often gained impact by inclusion in systematic reviews or guidelines than IITs.ConclusionAn encouraging high proportion of the clinical trials were published, and a considerable proportion gained impact on clinical practice. However, there is still room for improvement. For publishing study results, study registries have become an alternative or complement to journal articles, especially for ISTs. IITs funded by governmental bodies in Germany reached an impact that is comparable to international IITs and ISTs.

Dataset Information

ASSIST applicability scoring of surgical trials. an investigator-reported assessment tool.

Context

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

ASSIST applicability scoring of surgical trials. an investigator-reported assessment tool.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure