Dataset Information

Rationalisations for women-only randomised controlled trials in conditions that affect both sexes: a scoping review protocol.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Women have historically been under-represented in randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including many landmark RCTs that established standards of care. In light of this fact, some modern researchers are calling for replication of earlier landmark trials with women only. This approach is ethically concerning, in that it would require some enrolled women to be deprived of treatments that are currently considered standard of care.

Objective

In an attempt to better understand the justification of a women-only approach to designing clinical trials, this study looks to systematically categorise the number of women-only RCTs for conditions that affect both men and women and the reasons given within the medical and philosophical literatures to perform them.

Methodology

This scoping review of the literature will search, screen and select articles based on predetermined inclusion/exclusion criteria, after which a grounded theory approach will be used to synthesise the data. It is expected that there will be a variety of reasons given for why a women-only trial may be justified. Electronic databases that will be searched include MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Clinical Trials Register, Web of Science Proceedings, ClinicalTrials.gov, Philosopher's Index, Phil Papers, JSTOR, Periodicals Archive Online, Project MUSE and the National Reference Centre for Bioethics.

Significance

The scope of this study is to determine published rationales used to justify women-only randomised trials, both in the case of new trials and in the repetition of landmark trials.

Ethics and dissemination

Research ethics board approval is not required for this study as there is no participant involvement. Results will be published as a stand-alone manuscript and will inform a larger project related to the ethics of a women-only RCT of carotid intervention for women with symptomatic high-grade carotid stenosis.

SUBMITTER: Matthewson A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7888323 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Rationalisations for women-only randomised controlled trials in conditions that affect both sexes: a scoping review protocol.

Matthewson Ainsley A Bereznyakova Olena O Dewar Brian B Davis Alexandra A Fedyk Mark M Yogendrakumar Vignan V Fergusson Dean A DA Gocan Sophia S Dowlatshahi Dar D Fahed Robert R Shamy Michel M

BMJ open 20210216 2

<h4>Introduction</h4>Women have historically been under-represented in randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including many landmark RCTs that established standards of care. In light of this fact, some modern researchers are calling for replication of earlier landmark trials with women only. This approach is ethically concerning, in that it would require some enrolled women to be deprived of treatments that are currently considered standard of care.<h4>Objective</h4>In an attempt to better unders ...[more]

PMID: 33593782

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) are widely viewed to generate the most reliable medical knowledge. However, RCTs are not always scientifically necessary and therefore not always ethical. Unfortunately, it is not clear when an RCT is not necessary or how this should be established. This study seeks to systematically catalogue justifications offered throughout the medical and ethics literature for performing randomisation within clinical trials.Methods and analysisWe will systematically search electronic databases of the medical literature including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Clinical Trials Register, Web of Science Proceedings, ClinicalTrials.gov; databases of philosophical literature including Philosopher's Index, Phil Papers, JSTOR, Periodicals Archive Online, Project MUSE, National Reference Centre for Bioethics; the library catalogue at the University of Ottawa; bibliographies of retrieved papers; and the grey literature. We will also pursue suggestions from experts in the fields of medical ethics, philosophy and clinical trial methodology. Article screening, selection and data extraction will be performed by two independent reviewers based on prespecified inclusion/exclusion criteria. A third reviewer will be consulted to resolve any discrepancies. We will then extract the reasons given to justify randomisation using methodology established to extract data in a defensible, systematic manner. We will track the reasons given, their frequency of use and changes over time. Finally, using grounded theory, we will combine the reasons into broader themes. These themes will form the foundation of our subsequent analysis from qualitative and quantitative perspectives. This review will map existing arguments that clinicians, ethicists and philosophers use to ethically justify randomisation in clinical trials.Ethics and disseminationNo research ethics board approval is necessary because we are not examining patient-level data. This protocol complies with the reported guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. The findings of this paper will be disseminated via presentations and academic publication. In a subsequent phase of this research, we hope to engage with stakeholders and translate any recommendations derived from our findings into operational guidelines.

Project description:BackgroundCurrently, about 2 per 1000 children in the industrialised world are severely visually impaired or blind (SVI/BL) due to diverse uncommon conditions that are usually present from early infancy. The impact of SVI/BL is lifelong and life-changing. Thus, children are a priority in the WHO-led global initiative against avoidable blindness. The aim of this scoping review is to assess the current evidence base on interventions to prevent or treat the major causes of childhood SVI/BL, specifically the degree of alignment between robust interventional research (RCTs) and the burden (relative frequency) of the key causative disorders, identifying gaps in the evidence base for tackling childhood blindness.Methods/designWe will perform a scoping review of the published literature of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for clinical interventions that prevent or treat eye and vision diseases in children (<18 years old). Major electronic databases MEDLINE (PUBMED), EMBASE and the Cochrane CENTRAL will be searched to identify published trials using a comprehensive paediatric specific strategy informed by previous searches. The outcome of our study, randomised clinical trial activity, will be measured by the total number of RCTs and total paediatric participants randomised. The quantity and distribution of activity across diseases will be classified in the broad categories of anatomical site affected (per WHO taxonomy). The degree of alignment between paediatric trial activity and burden of SVI/BL disease (relative proportion) will be measured using a test of association (Spearman's correlation coefficient).DiscussionDespite the global public health importance of childhood blindness, there has been no assessment of the completeness of the evidence base regarding clinical interventions to prevent or treat the causative disorders. This scoping review will measure the degree of alignment between the published evidence and the burden of disease to identify gaps in current knowledge and consider the underlying reasons, informing clinicians, policy makers and funders about research priorities.

Project description:IntroductionInformed consent is essential to clinical research, though obtaining informed consent for participation in research for emergency conditions is challenging. Adapted consent methods include consent from a substitute-decision maker, deferral of consent and waiver of consent. A novel approach is to use advanced consent, where a potential participant provides consent in the present in the event that they become eligible for enrolment into a future study. This scoping review will map and synthesise the literature on the use of advanced consent for participation and enrolment in randomised control trials for emergency conditions.Methods and analysisGuided by Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review methodology framework, we will search electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Register of Clinical Trials), the grey literature sources and reference lists of relevant studies. Eligible studies will include English language articles that discuss, examine or employ the use of advanced consent for enrolment in randomised control trials, specifically related to emergency conditions or emergency treatment. Diverse types of articles will be eligible for inclusion, including peer-reviewed qualitative and quantitative studies such as randomised control trials, observational studies, surveys, systematic reviews, as well as narrative reviews and ethics papers. Studies will be screened by two independent reviewers to determine eligibility for inclusion. Data on bibliographic information, study characteristics and methodology, and reported results, specifically author disposition, will be extracted and described using qualitative analysis.Ethics and disseminationFormal ethics review is not required as primary data will not be collected. The findings of this study will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication. The findings of this study will help identify knowledge gaps that may guide areas for future research and may aid in the design of future clinical trials using advanced consent.

Project description:Randomised control trials are regarded as the gold standard for evaluating the effectiveness and efficacy of healthcare interventions with thousands of trials published every year. Despite significant investment in infrastructure, a staggering number of clinical trials continue to face challenges with retention. Dropouts could lead to negative consequences-from lengthy delays to missing data that can undermine the results and integrity of the trial. Summarising evidence from non-randomised evaluations of retention strategies could provide complementary information to randomised evaluations that could guide trialists to the most effective ways of increasing retention of participants in clinical trials.The following electronic databases will be searched for relevant studies: EMBASE, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, and Cochrane Methodology Register and the search will be limited to English-published studies during the last 10 years to increase relevance to current trials. Non-randomised studies (observational studies) including a comparison of two or more strategies to increase participant retention in randomised trials or comparing one or more strategies with no strategy will be included. The primary outcome will be the proportion of participants remained at the primary analysis as determined in each retention study.This review aims to gather and evaluate evidence on the effect of retention strategies examined in non-randomised studies. It is imperative to collect evidence from obseravational studies to infer whether or not these studies could be considered a practical way to complement or even replace a broadly favourable randomised design. If we find that non-randomised studies to be included in this review are of high quality with adequate control of biases, we will recommend to trialists and others not to rely exclusively on randomised studies and to give meticulous attention to the plentiful evidence that can be obtained from non-randomised studies. Should the results of this review suggest that evaluating retention strategies in observational studies provides insufficient evidence to trialists planning their retention strategies, we will be able to say that there is little point in conducting non-randomised studies and that they would do better to invest their time and resources in a randomised evaluation if possible. Where a non-randomised study design is chosen, the review authors will offer recommendations to trialists and others regarding how to ensure that these studies are conducted in a way that can minimise the risk of bias and increase confidence in the findings.PROSPERO 2017: CRD42017072775 .

Project description:BackgroundNon-retention of participants seriously affects the credibility of clinical trial results and significantly reduces the potential of a trial to influence clinical practice. Non-retention can be defined as instances where participants leave the study prematurely. Examples include withdrawal of consent and loss to follow-up and thus outcome data cannot be obtained. The majority of existing interventions targeting retention fail to describe any theoretical basis for the observed improvement, or lack of improvement. Moreover, most of these interventions lack involvement of participants in their conception and/or design, raising questions about their relevance and acceptability. Many of the causes of non-retention involve people performing a behaviour (e.g. not returning a questionnaire). Behaviour change is difficult, and the importance of a strong theoretical basis for interventions that aim to change behaviour is increasingly recognised. This research aims to develop and pilot theoretically informed, participant-centred, evidence-based behaviour change interventions to improve retention in trials.MethodsThis research will generate data through semi-structured interviews on stakeholders' perspectives of the reasons for trial non-retention. It will identify perceived barriers and enablers to trial retention using the Theoretical Domains Framework. The intervention development work will involve identification of behaviour change techniques, using recognised methodology, and co-production of retention interventions through discussion groups with end-users. An evaluation of intervention acceptability and feasibility will be conducted in focus groups. Finally, a ready-to-use evaluation framework to deploy in Studies Within A Trial as well as an explanatory retention framework will be developed for identifying and tackling modifiable issues to improve trial retention.DiscussionWe believe this to be one of the first studies to apply a theoretical lens to the development of interventions to improve trial retention that have been informed by, and are embedded within, participants' experiential accounts. By developing and identifying priority interventions this study will support efforts to reduce research waste.

Project description:IntroductionAmong randomised controlled trials for depressed adolescents, the extent of variation in how depressive symptom outcomes are defined is unknown. The variability in which potential predictors of these outcomes are tested is also unclear. This paper is a protocol describing the methods of a planned scoping review. The scoping review will examine and summarise how change in depressive symptoms have been described in RCT treatment studies to date. This review will report the measures used to describe change in depressive symptoms and whether the measure was used as a continuous or binary outcome or both. This review will describe how dichotomous outcome terms are defined to describe change in depression severity. This review will also examine predictors, moderators and mediators of change in depressive symptoms within RCTs.Methods and analysisIn this paper, we describe the protocol for our scoping review. Following the format outlined by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews, a research librarian will develop an operationalised search strategy, which we will apply to the MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases. We will search for papers from inception to 6 February 2020. A hand search for key citations will also be conducted. Investigator-raters will screen articles, first via the titles and abstracts and then through full-text reviews. We will include articles with randomised control design which assess the treatment of adolescents with major depressive disorder. We will systematically extract and synthesise prespecified data which includes: definition of depression used for participant inclusion, measures used to evaluate changes in depression, type of outcome used (continuous, binary or both), definitions of dichotomous terms to denote change in depression (eg, response, remission, recovery, etc) and reported predictors/moderators/mediators of change.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required. Findings will be presented in journal publications and at conferences.

Dataset Information

Rationalisations for women-only randomised controlled trials in conditions that affect both sexes: a scoping review protocol.

Introduction

Objective

Methodology

Significance

Ethics and dissemination

Publications

Rationalisations for women-only randomised controlled trials in conditions that affect both sexes: a scoping review protocol.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure