Dataset Information

Specific barriers to the conduct of randomised clinical trials on medical devices.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Medical devices play an important role in the diagnosis, prevention, treatment and care of diseases. However, compared to pharmaceuticals, there is no rigorous formal regulation for demonstration of benefits and exclusion of harms to patients. The medical device industry argues that the classical evidence hierarchy cannot be applied for medical devices, as randomised clinical trials are impossible to perform. This article aims to identify the barriers for randomised clinical trials on medical devices.

Methods

Systematic literature searches without meta-analysis and internal European Clinical Research Infrastructure Network (ECRIN) communications taking place during face-to-face meetings and telephone conferences from 2013 to 2017 within the context of the ECRIN Integrating Activity (ECRIN-IA) project.

Results

In addition to the barriers that exist for all trials, we identified three major barriers for randomised clinical trials on medical devices, namely: (1) randomisation, including timing of assessment, acceptability, blinding, choice of the comparator group and considerations on the learning curve; (2) difficulties in determining appropriate outcomes; and (3) the lack of scientific advice, regulations and transparency.

Conclusions

The present review offers potential solutions to break down the barriers identified, and argues for applying the randomised clinical trial design when assessing the benefits and harms of medical devices.

SUBMITTER: Neugebauer EAM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5597993 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundConduct problems are common, disabling and costly. The prognosis for children with conduct problems is poor, with outcomes in adulthood including criminal behaviour, alcoholism, drug abuse, domestic violence, child abuse and a range of psychiatric disorders. There has been a rapid expansion of group based parent-training programmes for the treatment of children with conduct problems in a number of countries over the past 10 years. Existing reviews of parent training have methodological limitations such as inclusion of non-randomised studies, the absence of investigation for heterogeneity prior to meta-analysis or failure to report confidence intervals. The objective of the current study was to systematically review randomised controlled trials of parenting programmes for the treatment of children with conduct problems.MethodsStandard systematic review methods were followed including duplicate inclusion decisions, data extraction and quality assessment. Twenty electronic databases from the fields of medicine, psychology, social science and education were comprehensively searched for RCTs and systematic reviews to February 2006. Inclusion criteria were: randomised controlled trial; of structured, repeatable parenting programmes; for parents/carers of children up to the age of 18 with a conduct problem; and at least one measure of child behaviour. Meta-analysis and qualitative synthesis were used to summarise included studies.Results57 RCTs were included. Studies were small with an average group size of 21. Meta-analyses using both parent (SMD -0.67; 95% CI: -0.91, -0.42) and independent (SMD -0.44; 95% CI: -0.66, -0.23) reports of outcome showed significant differences favouring the intervention group. There was insufficient evidence to determine the relative effectiveness of different approaches to delivering parenting programmes.ConclusionParenting programmes are an effective treatment for children with conduct problems. The relative effectiveness of different parenting programmes requires further research.

Project description:BackgroundWhile patient and public involvement (PPI) in clinical trials is beneficial and mandated by some funders, formal guidance on how to implement PPI is limited and challenges have been reported. We aimed to investigate how PPI is approached within a UK Clinical Trials Unit (CTU)'s portfolio of randomised controlled trials, perceived barriers to/facilitators of its successful implementation, and perspectives on the CTU's role in PPI.MethodsA mixed-methods study design, involving (1) an online survey of 26 trial managers (TMs) and (2) Interviews with Trial Management Group members and public contributors from 8 case-study trials. Quantitative survey data were summarised using descriptive statistics and interview transcripts analysed thematically. Two public contributors advised throughout and are co-authors.Results(1) 21 TMs completed the survey; (2) 19 in-depth interviews were conducted with public contributors (n=8), TMs (n=5), chief investigators (n=3), PPI coordinators (n=2) and a researcher. 15/21 TMs surveyed reported that a public contributor was on the trial team, and 5 used another PPI method. 12/21 TMs reported that public contributors were paid (range £10-50/h). 5 TMs reported that training was provided for public contributors and few staff members had received any formal PPI training. The most commonly reported tasks undertaken by public contributors were the review of participant-facing materials/study documents and advising on recruitment/retention strategies. Public contributors wanted and valued feedback on changes made due to their input, but it was not always provided. Barriers to successful PPI included recruitment challenges, group dynamics, maintaining professional boundaries, negative attitudes to PPI amongst some researchers, a lack of continuity of trial staff, and the academic environment. Successful PPI required early and explicit planning, sharing of power and ownership of the trial with public contributors, building and maintaining relationships, and joint understanding and clarity about expectations/roles. CTUs have an important role to play in supporting recruitment, signposting and coordinating PPI.ConclusionsWhile highly valuable, PPI in trials is currently variable. PPI representatives are recruited informally, may not be provided with any training and are paid inconsistently across trials. Study findings can help optimise PPI in trials and ensure researchers and public contributors are adequately supported.

Project description:To evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of non-medical prescribing (NMP).Systematic review. Two reviewers independently completed searches, eligibility assessment and assessment of risk of bias.Pre-defined search terms/combinations were utilised to search electronic databases. In addition, hand searches of reference lists, key journals and grey literature were employed alongside consultation with authors/experts.Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating clinical or cost-effectiveness of NMP. Measurements reported on one or more outcome(s) of: pain, function, disability, health, social impact, patient-safety, costs-analysis, quality adjusted life years (QALYs), patient satisfaction, clinician perception of clinical and functional outcomes.Three RCTs from two countries were included (n = 932 participants) across primary and tertiary care settings. One RCT was assessed as low risk of bias, one as high risk of bias and one as unclear risk of bias. All RCTs evaluated clinical effectiveness with one also evaluating cost-effectiveness. Clinical effectiveness was evaluated using a range of safety and patient-reported outcome measures. Participants demonstrated significant improvement in outcomes when receiving NMP compared to treatment as usual (TAU) in all RCTs. An associated cost analysis showed NMP to be more expensive than TAU (regression coefficient p = 0.0000), however experimental groups generated increased QALYs compared to TAU.Limited evidence with overall unclear risk of bias exists evaluating clinical and cost-effectiveness of NMP across all professions and clinical settings. GRADE assessment revealed moderate quality evidence. Evidence suggests that NMP is safe and can provide beneficial clinical outcomes. Benefits to the health economy remain unclear, with the cost-effectiveness of NMP assessed by a single pilot RCT of low risk of bias. Adequately powered low risk of bias RCTs evaluating clinical and cost effectiveness are required to evaluate NMP across clinical specialities, professions and settings.PROSPERO (CRD42015017212).