Dataset Information

Understanding current practice, identifying barriers and exploring priorities for adverse event analysis in randomised controlled trials: an online, cross-sectional survey of statisticians from academia and industry.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:To gain a better understanding of current adverse event (AE) analysis practices and the reasons for the lack of use of sophisticated statistical methods for AE data analysis in randomised controlled trials (RCTs), with the aim of identifying priorities and solutions to improve practice. DESIGN:A cross-sectional, online survey of statisticians working in clinical trials, followed up with a workshop of senior statisticians working across the UK. PARTICIPANTS:We aimed to recruit into the survey a minimum of one statistician from each of the 51 UK Clinical Research Collaboration registered clinical trial units (CTUs) and industry statisticians from both pharmaceuticals and clinical research organisations. OUTCOMES:To gain a better understanding of current AE analysis practices, measure awareness of specialist methods for AE analysis and explore priorities, concerns and barriers when analysing AEs. RESULTS:Thirty-eight (38/51; 75%) CTUs, 5 (5/7; 71%) industry and 21 attendees at the 2019 Promoting Statistical Insights Conference participated in the survey. Of the 64 participants that took part, 46 participants were classified as public sector participants and 18 as industry participants. Participants indicated that they predominantly (80%) rely on subjective comparisons when comparing AEs between treatment groups. Thirty-eight per cent were aware of specialist methods for AE analysis, but only 13% had undertaken such analyses. All participants believed guidance on appropriate AE analysis and 97% thought training specifically for AE analysis is needed. These were both endorsed as solutions by workshop participants. CONCLUSIONS:This research supports our earlier work that identified suboptimal AE analysis practices in RCTs and confirms the underuse of more sophisticated AE analysis approaches. Improvements are needed, and further research in this area is required to identify appropriate statistical methods. This research provides a unanimous call for the development of guidance, as well as training on suitable methods for AE analysis to support change.

SUBMITTER: Phillips R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7295403 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Understanding current practice, identifying barriers and exploring priorities for adverse event analysis in randomised controlled trials: an online, cross-sectional survey of statisticians from academia and industry.

Phillips Rachel R Cornelius Victoria V

BMJ open 20200611 6

<h4>Objectives</h4>To gain a better understanding of current adverse event (AE) analysis practices and the reasons for the lack of use of sophisticated statistical methods for AE data analysis in randomised controlled trials (RCTs), with the aim of identifying priorities and solutions to improve practice.<h4>Design</h4>A cross-sectional, online survey of statisticians working in clinical trials, followed up with a workshop of senior statisticians working across the UK.<h4>Participants</h4>We aim ...[more]

PMID: 32532777

Similar Datasets

Project description:Collaboration between academia and industry is a growing phenomenon within the chemistry community. These sectors have long held strong ties since academia traditionally trains the future scientists of the corporate world, but the recent drastic decrease of public funding is motivating the academic world to seek more private grants. This concept of industrial "sponsoring" is not new, and in the past, some companies granted substantial amounts of money per annum to various academic institutions in exchange for prime access to all their scientific discoveries and inventions. However, academic and industrial interests were not always aligned, and therefore the investment has become increasingly difficult to justify from industry's point of view. With fluctuating macroeconomic factors, this type of unrestricted grant has become more rare and has been largely replaced by smaller and more focused partnerships. In our view, forging a partnership with industry can be a golden opportunity for both parties and can represent a true symbiosis. This type of project-specific collaboration is engendered by industry's desire to access very specific academic expertise that is required for the development of new technologies at the forefront of science. Since financial pressures do not allow companies to spend the time to acquire this expertise and even less to explore fundamental research, partnering with an academic laboratory whose research is related to the problem gives them a viable alternative. From an academic standpoint, it represents the perfect occasion to apply "pure science" research concepts to solve problems that benefit humanity. Moreover, it offers a unique opportunity for students to face challenges from the "real world" at an early stage of their career. Although not every problem in industry can be solved by research developments in academia, we argue that there is significant scientific overlap between these two seemingly disparate groups, thereby presenting an opportunity for a symbiosis. This type of partnership is challenging but can be a win-win situation if both parties agree on some general guidelines, including clearly defined goals and deliverables, biweekly meetings to track research progress, and quarterly or annual meetings to recognize overarching, common objectives. This Account summarizes our personal experience concerning collaborations with various industrial groups and the way it impacted the research programs for both sides in a symbiotic fashion.

Project description:A research team from Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard Medical School conducted a community-based feeding study in collaboration with Framingham State University (FSU) and Sodexo, the food service contractor at FSU. The study was a randomized controlled trial, implemented on the FSU campus. For the final year of the study, a satellite feeding site was established at Assabet Valley Regional Technical High School. The purpose of the study was to assess the biological effects of different macronutrient diets. An academia-industry partnership was developed to overcome common challenges associated with hospital-based feeding studies. Benefits included the following: a study site outside of Boston (reducing inconvenience for participants), access to a large commercial kitchen and study-specific kiosk (promoting efficiency), collaboration with Sodexo chefs (ensuring palatability of meals), and opportunity to procure food from contracted vendors. The research (academia) and food service (industry) teams worked together to design, plan, and execute intervention protocols using an integrated approach. During execution, the research team was primarily responsible for overseeing treatment fidelity, whereas the food service team provided culinary expertise, with a strong focus on hospitality and food quality. The study was conducted in 3 cohorts between August 2014 and May 2017. Participants received all of their food for ?30 wk, totaling >160,000 meals. For all 3 cohorts combined, 234 participants provided informed consent, 229 started a standard run-in weight-loss diet, 164 lost a mean ± SD 12% ± 2% of baseline body weight and were randomly assigned to different macronutrient diets for weight-loss maintenance, and 148 completed the study. During the final and largest cohort, as many as 114 participants received daily meals concurrently. The daily cost per participant for preparation and service of weighed meals and snacks was ?$65. This academia-industry partnership provides a model for controlled feeding protocols in nutrition research, potentially with enhanced cost-effectiveness, practicality, and generalizability. This trial was registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT02068885.

Project description:BackgroundSelecting effective implementation strategies to support guideline-concordant dental care is a complex process. We are drawing on data collected during the DISGO study to reflect on barriers we encountered in implementing a deliberative engagement process for discussing implementation strategies relevant to the evidence-based guideline targeted in this intervention. The goal is to identify factors that may influence the success of deliberative engagement as a technique to involve healthcare staff in identifying priorities for implementation strategies.MethodsWe drew on online chat transcripts from the deliberative engagement forums collected during the DISGO study. The chat transcripts were automatically generated for each discussion and captured the written exchanges between participants and moderators in all participating dental clinics. Chat transcripts were analyzed following a content analysis approach.ResultsOur findings revealed barriers to the successful implementation of deliberative engagement in the context of the DISGO study. Participants were not familiar with the materials that had been prepared for the forum and lacked familiarity with the topic of deliberation. Participants also did not share divergent viewpoints and reinforced existing ideas rather than introducing new ideas.ConclusionsIn order to ensure that obstacles that were encountered in this study are not repeated, it is important to carefully consider how staff can effectively be prepared for the deliberations. Participants must be familiar with the content of the guideline, and most questions about the content and evidence should be answered before the deliberative engagement sessions. If perspectives among staff on a guideline are homogenous, briefing materials should introduce perspectives that complement existing views among staff. It is also necessary to create an environment in which staff are comfortable introducing opinions that may not be held by the majority of colleagues.Trial registrationThis project is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with ID NCT04682730. The trial was first registered on 12/18/2020. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04682730 .

Dataset Information

Understanding current practice, identifying barriers and exploring priorities for adverse event analysis in randomised controlled trials: an online, cross-sectional survey of statisticians from academia and industry.

Publications

Understanding current practice, identifying barriers and exploring priorities for adverse event analysis in randomised controlled trials: an online, cross-sectional survey of statisticians from academia and industry.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets