Dataset Information

Challenges for funders in monitoring compliance with policies on clinical trials registration and reporting: analysis of funding and registry data in the UK.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:To evaluate compliance by researchers with funder requirements on clinical trial transparency, including identifying key areas for improvement; to assess the completeness, accuracy and suitability for annual compliance monitoring of the data routinely collected by a research funding body. DESIGN:Descriptive analysis of clinical trials funded between February 2011 and January 2017 against funder policy requirements. SETTING:Public medical research funding body in the UK. DATA SOURCES:Relevant clinical trials were identified from grant application details, post-award grant monitoring systems and the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) registry. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE:The proportion of all Medical Research Council (MRC)-funded clinical trials that were (a) registered in a clinical trial registry and (b) publicly reported summary results within 2 years of completion. RESULTS:There were 175 grants awarded that included a clinical trial and all trials were registered in a public trials registry. Of 62 trials completed for over 24 months, 42 (68%) had publicly reported the main findings by 24 months after trial completion; 18 of these achieved this within 12 months of completion. 11 (18%) trials took >24 months to report and 9 (15%) completed trials had not yet reported findings. Five datasets were shared with other researchers. CONCLUSIONS:Compliance with the funder policy requirements on trial registration was excellent. Reporting of the main findings was achieved for most trials within 24 months of completion; however, the number of unreported trials remains a concern and should be a focus for future funder policy initiatives. Identifying trials from grant management and grant monitoring systems was challenging therefore funders should ensure investigators reliably provide trial registries with information and regularly update entries with details of trial publications and protocols.

SUBMITTER: Knowles RL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7045207 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Challenges for funders in monitoring compliance with policies on clinical trials registration and reporting: analysis of funding and registry data in the UK.

Knowles Rachel L RL Ha Kam Pou KP Mueller Julia J Rawle Frances F Parker Rosa R

BMJ open 20200217 2

<h4>Objectives</h4>To evaluate compliance by researchers with funder requirements on clinical trial transparency, including identifying key areas for improvement; to assess the completeness, accuracy and suitability for annual compliance monitoring of the data routinely collected by a research funding body.<h4>Design</h4>Descriptive analysis of clinical trials funded between February 2011 and January 2017 against funder policy requirements.<h4>Setting</h4>Public medical research funding body in ...[more]

PMID: 32071191

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundData sharing is commonly seen as beneficial for science but is not yet common practice. Research funding agencies are known to play a key role in promoting data sharing, but German funders' data sharing policies appear to lag behind in international comparison. This study aims to answer the question of how German data sharing experts inside and outside funding agencies perceive and evaluate German funders' data sharing policies and overall efforts to promote data sharing.MethodsThis study is based on sixteen guided expert interviews with representatives of German funders and German research data experts from stakeholder organisations, who shared their perceptions of German' funders efforts to promote data sharing. By applying the method of qualitative content analysis to our interview data, we categorise and describe noteworthy aspects of the German data sharing policy landscape and illustrate our findings with interview passages.ResultsWe present our findings in five sections to distinguish our interviewees' perceptions on a) the status quo of German funders' data sharing policies, b) the role of funders in promoting data sharing, c) current and potential measures by funders to promote data sharing, d) general barriers to those measures, and e) the implementation of more binding data sharing requirements.Discussion and conclusionAlthough funders are perceived to be important promoters and facilitators of data sharing throughout our interviews, only few German funding agencies have data sharing policies in place. Several interviewees stated that funders could do more, for example by providing incentives for data sharing or by introducing more concrete policies. Our interviews suggest the academic freedom of grantees is widely perceived as an obstacle for German funders in introducing mandatory data sharing requirements. However, some interviewees stated that stricter data sharing requirements could be justified if data sharing is a part of good scientific practice.

Project description:BackgroundRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) represent the gold standard methodological design to evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention in humans but they are subject to bias, including study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. National and international organisations and charities give recommendations for good research practice in relation to RCTs but to date no review of these guidelines has been undertaken with respect to reporting bias.MethodsNational and international organisations and UK based charities listed on the Association for Medical Research Charities website were contacted in 2007; they were considered eligible for this review if they funded RCTs. Guidelines were obtained and assessed in relation to what was written about trial registration, protocol adherence and trial publication. It was also noted whether any monitoring against these guidelines was undertaken. This information was necessary to discover how much guidance researchers are given on the publication of results, in order to prevent study publication bias and outcome reporting bias.ResultsSeventeen organisations and 56 charities were eligible of 140 surveyed for this review, although there was no response from 12. Trial registration, protocol adherence, trial publication and monitoring against the guidelines were often explicitly discussed or implicitly referred too. However, only eleven of these organisations or charities mentioned the publication of negative as well as positive outcomes and just three of the organisations specifically stated that the statistical analysis plan should be strictly adhered to and all changes should be reported.ConclusionOur review indicates that there is a need to provide more detailed guidance for those conducting and reporting clinical trials to help prevent the selective reporting of results. Statements found in the guidelines generally refer to publication bias rather than outcome reporting bias. Current guidelines need to be updated and include the statement that all primary and secondary outcomes prespecified in the protocol should be fully reported and should not be selected for inclusion in the final report based on their results.

Project description:Compliance with required on-farm biosecurity practices reduces the risk of contamination and spread of zoonotic and economically important diseases. With repeating avian influenza epidemics in the poultry industry, the need to monitor and improve the overall level of biosecurity is increasing. In practice, biosecurity compliance is assessed by various actors (e.g., academic, private and public institutions), and the results of such assessments may be recorded and gathered in databases which are seldom shared or thoroughly analyzed. This study aimed to provide an inventory of databases related to the assessment of biosecurity in poultry farms in seven major poultry-producing European countries to highlight challenges and opportunities associated with biosecurity data collection, sharing, and use. The institutions in charge of these databases were contacted and interviewed using a structured questionnaire to gather information on the main characteristics of the databases and the context of their implementation. A total of 20 databases were identified, covering the gamut of poultry species and production types. Most databases were linked to veterinary health authorities or academia, and to a lesser extent interbranch organizations. Depending on the institutions in charge, the databases serve various purposes, from providing advice to enforcing regulations. The quality of the biosecurity data collected is believed to be quite reliable, as biosecurity is mostly assessed by trained farm advisors or official veterinarians and during a farm visit. Some of the databases are difficult to analyze and/or do not offer information concerning which biosecurity measures are most or least respected. Moreover, some key biosecurity practices are sometimes absent from certain databases. Although the databases serve a variety of purposes and cover different production types, each with specific biosecurity features, their analysis should help to improve the surveillance of biosecurity in the poultry sector and provide evidence on the benefits of biosecurity.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To analyse prospective versus retrospective trial registration trends on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) and to evaluate the reasons for non-compliance with prospective registration. DESIGN:Part 1: Descriptive analysis of trial registration trends from 2006 to 2015. Part 2: Online registrant survey. PARTICIPANTS:Part 1: All interventional trials registered on ANZCTR from 2006 to 2015. Part 2: Random sample of those who had retrospectively registered a trial on ANZCTR between 2010 and 2015. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Part 1: Proportion of prospective versus retrospective clinical trial registrations (ie, registration before versus after enrolment of the first participant) on the ANZCTR overall and by various key metrics, such as sponsor, funder, recruitment country and sample size. Part 2: Reasons for non-compliance with prospective registration and perceived usefulness of various proposed mechanisms to improve prospective registration compliance. RESULTS:Part 1: Analysis of the complete dataset of 9450 trials revealed that compliance with prospective registration increased from 48% (216 out of 446 trials) in 2006 to 63% (723/1148) in 2012 and has since plateaued at around 64%. Patterns of compliance were relatively consistent across sponsor and funder types (industry vs non-industry), type of intervention (drug vs non-drug) and size of trial (n<100, 100-500, >500). However, primary sponsors from Australia/New Zealand were almost twice as likely to register prospectively (62%; 4613/7452) compared with sponsors from other countries with a WHO Network Registry (35%; 377/1084) or sponsors from countries without a WHO Registry (29%; 230/781). Part 2: The majority (56%; 84/149) of survey respondents cited lack of awareness as a reason for not registering their study prospectively. Seventy-four per cent (111/149) stated that linking registration to ethics approval would facilitate prospective registration. CONCLUSIONS:Despite some progress, compliance with prospective registration remains suboptimal. Linking registration to ethics approval was the favoured strategy among those sampled for improving compliance.

Project description:The Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act (FDAAA) mandates timely reporting of results of applicable clinical trials to ClinicalTrials.gov. We characterized the proportion of applicable clinical trials with publicly available results and determined independent factors associated with the reporting of results.Using an algorithm based on input from the National Library of Medicine, we identified trials that were likely to be subject to FDAAA provisions (highly likely applicable clinical trials, or HLACTs) from 2008 through 2013. We determined the proportion of HLACTs that reported results within the 12-month interval mandated by the FDAAA or at any time during the 5-year study period. We used regression models to examine characteristics associated with reporting at 12 months and throughout the 5-year study period.From all the trials at ClinicalTrials.gov, we identified 13,327 HLACTs that were terminated or completed from January 1, 2008, through August 31, 2012. Of these trials, 77.4% were classified as drug trials. A total of 36.9% of the trials were phase 2 studies, and 23.4% were phase 3 studies; 65.6% were funded by industry. Only 13.4% of trials reported summary results within 12 months after trial completion, whereas 38.3% reported results at any time up to September 27, 2013. Timely reporting was independently associated with factors such as FDA oversight, a later trial phase, and industry funding. A sample review suggested that 45% of industry-funded trials were not required to report results, as compared with 6% of trials funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and 9% of trials that were funded by other government or academic institutions.Despite ethical and legal obligations to disclose findings promptly, most HLACTs did not report results to ClinicalTrials.gov in a timely fashion during the study period. Industry-funded trials adhered to legal obligations more often than did trials funded by the NIH or other government or academic institutions. (Funded by the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative and the NIH.).

Dataset Information

Challenges for funders in monitoring compliance with policies on clinical trials registration and reporting: analysis of funding and registry data in the UK.

Publications

Challenges for funders in monitoring compliance with policies on clinical trials registration and reporting: analysis of funding and registry data in the UK.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets