FMRI as an outcome measure in clinical trials: A systematic review in clinicaltrials.gov.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Introduction
More than one-thousand trials with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) as an outcome measure were registered in clinicaltrials.gov at the time of writing this article. However, 93% of these registered trials are still not completed with published results and there is no picture available about methodological dimensions of these ongoing trials with fMRI as an outcome measure.Methods
We collected trials that use fMRI as an outcome measure in the ClinicalTrials.gov registry on 13 October 2018 and reviewed each trial's record entry. Eligible trials' characteristics were extracted and summarized.Results
In total, 1,386 clinical trials were identified that reported fMRI in their outcome measures with fMRI as the only primary outcome in 33% of them. 82% of fMRI trials were started after 2011. The most frequent intervention was drug (pharmacological intervention) (29%). 57% of trials had parallel assignment design and 20% were designed for cross-over assignment. For task-based fMRI, cognitive systems (46%) based on Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) was the most frequent domain of tasks. Less than one-third of trials (28%) registered at least one region of interest for their analysis. Food cue reactivity task, pain perception task, n-back task, and monetary incentive delay task were recruited in more than 25 registered trials.Conclusion
The number of fMRI trials (fMRI as an outcome measure) with both task and rest protocols is growing rapidly. Our study suggests a growing need for harmonization and standardized checklists on both methods and analysis for preregistration of fMRI-based outcomes in clinical trials.
SUBMITTER: Sadraee A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8119793 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Objective:The aim of this review is to characterize current status of global TCM clinical trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov. Methods:We examined all the trials registered within ClinicalTrials.gov up to 25 September 2015, focusing on study interventions to identify TCM-related trials, and extracted 1,270 TCM trials from the data set. Results:Overall, 691 (54.4%) trials were acupuncture, and 454 (35.8%) trials were herbal medicines. Differences in TCM trial intervention types were also evident among the specific therapeutic areas. Among all trials, 55.7% that were small studies enrolled <100 subjects, and only 8.7% of completed studies had reported results of trials. As for the location, the United States was second to China in conducting the most TCM trials. Conclusion:This review is the first snapshot of the landscape of TCM clinical trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, providing the basis for treatment and prevention of diseases within TCM and offering useful information that will guide future research on TCM.
| S-EPMC5613643 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Well-designed trials are of paramount importance in improving the delivery of care to patients with kidney disease. However, it remains unknown whether contemporary clinical trials within nephrology are of sufficient quality and quantity to meet this need.Systematic review.Studies registered with ClinicalTrials.gov.Interventional (ie, nonobservational) studies (both randomized and nonrandomized) registered between October 2007 and September 2010 were included for analysis. Studies were reviewed independently by physicians and classified by clinical specialty.Nephrology versus cardiology versus other trials.Select clinical trial characteristics.Of 40,970 trials overall, 1,054 (2.6%) were classified as nephrology. Most nephrology trials were for treatment (75.4%) or prevention (15.7%), with very few diagnostic, screening, or health services research studies. Most nephrology trials were randomized (72.3%). Study designs included 24.9% with a single study group, 64.0% that included parallel groups, and 9.4% that were crossover trials. Nephrology trials, compared with 2,264 cardiology trials (5.5% overall), were more likely to be smaller (64.5% vs 48.0% enrolling?100 patients), phases 1-2 (29.0% vs 19.7%), and unblinded (66.2% vs 53.3%; P<0.05 for all). Nephrology trials also were more likely than cardiology trials to include a drug intervention (72.4% vs 41.9%) and less likely to report having a data monitoring committee (40.3% vs 48.5%; P<0.05 for all). Finally, there were few trials funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH; 3.3%, nephrology; 4.2%, cardiology).Does not include all trials performed worldwide, and frequent categorization of funding source as university may underestimate NIH support.Critical differences remain between clinical trials in nephrology and other specialties. Improving care for patients with kidney disease will require a concerted effort to increase the scope, quality, and quantity of clinical trials within nephrology.
| S-EPMC3988265 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere is a paucity of clinical trials informing specific questions faced by infectious diseases (ID) specialists. The ClinicalTrials.gov registry offers an opportunity to evaluate the ID clinical trials portfolio.MethodsWe examined 40,970 interventional trials registered with ClinicalTrials.gov from 2007-2010, focusing on study conditions and interventions to identify ID-related trials. Relevance to ID was manually confirmed for each programmatically identified trial, yielding 3570 ID trials and 37,400 non-ID trials for analysis.ResultsThe number of ID trials was similar to the number of trials identified as belonging to cardiovascular medicine (n = 3437) or mental health (n = 3695) specialties. Slightly over half of ID trials were treatment-oriented trials (53%, vs. 77% for non-ID trials) followed by prevention (38%, vs. 8% in non-ID trials). ID trials tended to be larger than those of other specialties, with a median enrollment of 125 subjects (interquartile range [IQR], 45-400) vs. 60 (IQR, 30-160) for non-ID trials. Most ID studies are randomized (73%) but nonblinded (56%). Industry was the funding source in 51% of ID trials vs. 10% that were primarily NIH-funded. HIV-AIDS trials constitute the largest subset of ID trials (n = 815 [23%]), followed by influenza vaccine (n = 375 [11%]), and hepatitis C (n = 339 [9%]) trials. Relative to U.S. and global mortality rates, HIV-AIDS and hepatitis C virus trials are over-represented, whereas lower respiratory tract infection trials are under-represented in this large sample of ID clinical trials.ConclusionsThis work is the first to characterize ID clinical trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, providing a framework to discuss prioritization, methodology, and policy.
| S-EPMC3797691 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The registry ClinicalTrials.gov was created to provide investigators and patients an accessible database of relevant clinical trials.To understand the state of sickle cell disease clinical trials, a comprehensive review of all 174 "closed," "interventional" sickle cell trials registered at ClinicalTrials.gov was completed in January 2015.The majority of registered sickle cell disease clinical trials listed an academic center as the primary sponsor and were an early phase trial. The primary outcome for sickle cell disease trials focused on pain (23%), bone marrow transplant (BMT) (13%), hydroxyurea (8%), iron overload (8%), and pulmonary hypertension (8%). A total of 52 trials were listed as terminated or withdrawn, including 25 (14% of all trials) terminated for failure to enroll participants. At the time of this review, only 19 trials uploaded results and 29 trials uploaded a manuscript in the ClinicalTrials.gov database. A systematic review of pubmed.gov revealed that only 35% of sickle cell studies completed prior to 2014 resulted in an identified manuscript. In comparison, of 80 thalassemia trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, four acknowledged failure to enroll participants as a reason for trial termination or withdrawal, and 48 trials (60%) completed prior to 2014 resulted in a currently identified manuscript.ClinicalTrials.gov can be an important database for investigators and patients with sickle cell disease to understand the current available research trials. To enhance the validity of the website, investigators must update their trial results and upload trial manuscripts into the database. This study, for the first time, quantifies outcomes of sickle cell disease trials and provides support to the belief that barriers exist to successful completion, publication, and dissemination of sickle cell trial results.
| S-EPMC4643416 | biostudies-literature
Project description:RationalePatients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) struggle with respiratory symptoms that impair their daily activities and quality of life. Understanding a treatment's ability to relieve symptoms requires precise assessment. The Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in COPD (E-RSTM:COPD) was developed to quantify respiratory symptoms in clinical trials. This study aimed to better understand how trials use this patient-reported outcome measure as an endpoint, as well as its responsiveness and performance relative to other outcome measures.ObjectivesTo summarize the use of the E-RS:COPD in pharmacological trials since its qualification by regulatory authorities.MethodsA rapid systematic literature review, using key biomedical databases to identify English language full-text publications of randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) that included the E-RS:COPD as an endpoint (2010-2020). Two investigators independently screened the publications and extracted data.Measurements and main resultsOf 219 screened records, 28 full-text publications were included, and data from 17 reporting 20 unique double-blind RCTs were synthesized. The E-RS:COPD was positioned as a primary or secondary endpoint in six publications (35%), and served as an exploratory or additional endpoint in 11 (65%). Statistically significant E-RS:COPD treatment effects versus placebo/comparator were found in 13 of the 14 publications reporting symptom results. E-RS:COPD effects corresponded well with other outcome measures (e.g., St George's Respiratory Questionnaire [SGRQ] and forced expiratory volume 1 second [FEV1]). Two publications reported the number of responders.ConclusionsE-RS:COPD is sensitive to treatment effects in clinical trials testing drug therapies. Presentation of trial results should include responder analyses to facilitate interpretation and application of results.
| S-EPMC8686855 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:This review investigates characteristics of implemented adaptive design clinical trials and provides examples of regulatory experience with such trials. DESIGN:Review of adaptive design clinical trials in EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Registry of Controlled Clinical Trials, Web of Science and ClinicalTrials.gov. Phase I and seamless Phase I/II trials were excluded. Variables extracted from trials included basic study characteristics, adaptive design features, size and use of independent data monitoring committees (DMCs) and blinded interim analyses. We also examined use of the adaptive trials in new drug submissions to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) and recorded regulators' experiences with adaptive designs. RESULTS:142 studies met inclusion criteria. There has been a recent growth in publicly reported use of adaptive designs among researchers around the world. The most frequently appearing types of adaptations were seamless Phase II/III (57%), group sequential (21%), biomarker adaptive (20%), and adaptive dose-finding designs (16%). About one-third (32%) of trials reported an independent DMC, while 6% reported blinded interim analysis. We found that 9% of adaptive trials were used for FDA product approval consideration, and 12% were used for EMA product approval consideration. International regulators had mixed experiences with adaptive trials. Many product applications with adaptive trials had extensive correspondence between drug sponsors and regulators regarding the adaptive designs, in some cases with regulators requiring revisions or alterations to research designs. CONCLUSIONS:Wider use of adaptive designs will necessitate new drug application sponsors to engage with regulatory scientists during planning and conduct of the trials. Investigators need to more consistently report protections intended to preserve confidentiality and minimise potential operational bias during interim analysis.
| S-EPMC5829673 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRegistration of interventional trials of Food and Drug Administration-regulated drug and biological products and devices became a legal requirement in 2007; the vast majority of these trials are registered in ClinicalTrials.gov. An analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov offers an opportunity to define the clinical research landscape; here we analyze 10 years of infectious disease (ID) clinical trial research.MethodsBeginning with 166 415 interventional trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov from 2007-2017, ID trials were selected by study conditions and interventions. Relevance to ID was confirmed through manual review, resulting in 13 707 ID trials and 152 708 non-ID trials.ResultsID-related trials represented 6.9%-9.9% of all trials with no significant trend over time. ID trials tended to be more focused on treatment and prevention, with a focus on testing drugs, biologics, and vaccines. ID trials tended to be large, randomized, and nonblinded with a greater degree of international enrollment. Industry was the primary funding source for 45.2% of ID trials. Compared with the global burden of disease, human immunodeficiency virus/AIDS and hepatitis C trials were overrepresented, and lower respiratory tract infection trials were underrepresented. Hepatitis C trials fluctuated, keeping with a wave of new drug development. Influenza vaccine trials peaked during the 2009 H1N1 swine influenza outbreak.ConclusionsThis study presents the most comprehensive characterization of ID clinical trials over the past decade. These results help define how clinical research aligns with clinical need. Temporal trends reflect changes in disease epidemiology and the impact of scientific discovery and market forces. Periodic review of ID clinical trials can help identify gaps and serve as a mechanism to realign resources.
| S-EPMC6598302 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThere is increasing emphasis on the importance of optimizing and standardizing clinical trials of agitation in Alzheimer's disease (AD), but the risks of bias arising from published trials and the number and design of unpublished studies are poorly understood.MethodsUsing the ClinicalTrials.gov database, we systematically reviewed all registered investigational clinical trials for agitation in AD to describe the landscape of agitation drug treatment trials and to assess their quality and generalizability.ResultsWe included 52 clinical studies registered over the past 25 years. Within published randomized controlled trials (RCTs), there was a high rate of participant dropout, poor reporting of randomization procedures, and inconsistent definitions of the sample included for analysis. There was also evidence of publication and funder bias.DiscussionWe discuss factors that limit the internal and external validity of published RCTs and make additional recommendations for the conduct and reporting of future clinical trials of agitation in AD.
| S-EPMC8010365 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDysregulation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis is associated with diverse adverse health outcomes, making it an important therapeutic target. Measurement of the diurnal rhythm of cortisol secretion provides a window into this system. At present, no guidelines exist for the optimal use of this biomarker within randomised controlled trials (RCTs).PurposeThe aim of this study is to describe the ways in which salivary diurnal cortisol has been measured within RCTs of health or behavioural interventions in adults.MethodsSix electronic databases (up to May 21, 2015) were systematically searched for RCTs which used salivary diurnal cortisol as an outcome measure to evaluate health or behavioural interventions in adults. A narrative synthesis was undertaken of the findings in relation to salivary cortisol methodology and outcomes.ResultsFrom 78 studies that fulfilled the inclusion criteria, 30 included healthy participants (38.5 %), 27 included patients with physical disease (34.6 %) and 21 included patients with psychiatric disease (26.9 %). Psychological therapies were most commonly evaluated (n?=?33, 42.3 %). There was substantial heterogeneity across studies in relation to saliva collection protocols and reported cortisol parameters. Only 39 studies (50 %) calculated a rhythm parameter such as the diurnal slope or the cortisol awakening response (CAR). Patterns of change in cortisol parameters were inconsistent both within and across studies and there was low agreement with clinical findings.ConclusionsSalivary diurnal cortisol is measured inconsistently across RCTs, which is limiting the interpretation of findings within and across studies. This indicates a need for more validation work, along with consensus guidelines.
| S-EPMC4823366 | biostudies-literature
Project description:An important principle in the good conduct of clinical trials is that a summary of the trial protocol, with a pre-defined primary outcome, should be freely available before the study commences. The clinical trials registry ClinicalTrials.gov provides one method of doing this, and once the trial is registered, any changes made to the primary outcome are documented. The objectives of this study were: to assess the proportion of registered trials on ClinicalTrials.gov that had the primary outcome changed; to assess when the primary outcome was changed in relation to the listed study start and end dates and to assess whether the primary outcome change had any relation to the study sponsor.A cross-sectional analysis of all interventional clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as of 25 October 2012 was performed. The main outcome was any change made to the initially listed primary outcome and the time of the change in relation to the trial start and end date.Our analysis showed that 28229 of 89204 (31.7%) registered studies had their primary outcome changed. Industry funding was associated with all primary outcome changes, odds ratio (OR)= 1.36, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.31-1.41, p<0.001; with primary outcome changes after study start date OR=1.37, 95% CI=1.32-1.42, p<0.001; with primary outcome changes after primary completion date OR=1.84, 95% CI=1.75-1.94, p<0.001 and with primary outcome changes after study completion date OR=1.82, 95% CI=1.73-1.91, p<0.001. Conclusions A significant proportion of interventional trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov have their primary outcomes altered after the listed study start and completion dates. These changes are associated with funding source.
| S-EPMC4032105 | biostudies-literature