Compliance of Clinical Trial Protocols for Foods with Function Claims (FFC) in Japan: Consistency between Clinical Trial Registrations and Published Reports.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
A new type of foods with a health claims notification system, the Foods with Function Claims (FFC), was introduced in Japan in April 2015. This cross-sectional study sought to clarify compliance of clinical trial protocols reported as the scientific basis of efficacy in the FFC system.Methods
All articles based on clinical trials published on the Consumer Affairs Agency website from 1 July 2018 to 30 June 2021 were reviewed. Items assessed included first author characteristics (for-profit or academia), journal name, year published, journal impact factor in 2020, article language, name of clinical trial registration (CTR), and seven compliance items (Title: T, Participant: P, Intervention: I, Comparison: C, Outcome: O, Study design: S, and Institutional Review Board, IRB). Among studies that conducted CTR, consistency with these seven compliance items was evaluated.Results
Out of 136 studies that met all inclusion criteria, 103 (76%) performed CTR, and CTR was either not performed or not specified for 33 (24%). Compliance between the protocol and the text was high (≥96%) for items P and S, but considerably lower for items T, I, C, O, and IRB (52%, 15%, 13%, 69%, and 27%, respectively). Furthermore, 43% of protocols did not include functional ingredients or food names in items T or I. The total score was 3.7 ± 1.1 pts (out of 7).Conclusions
Some CTs had no protocol registration, and even registered protocols were suboptimal in transparency. In addition to selective reporting, a new problem identified was that the content of the intervention (test food) was intentionally concealed.
SUBMITTER: Kamioka H
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8746435 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Studies measuring the completeness and consistency of trial registration and reporting rely on linking registries with bibliographic databases. In this systematic review, we quantified the processes used to identify these links.PubMed and Embase databases were searched from inception to May 2016 for studies linking trial registries with bibliographic databases. The processes used to establish these links were categorised as automatic when the registration identifier was available in the bibliographic database or publication, or manual when linkage required inference or contacting of trial investigators. The number of links identified by each process was extracted where available. Linear regression was used to determine whether the proportions of links available via automatic processes had increased over time.In 43 studies that examined cohorts of registry entries, 24 used automatic and manual processes to find articles; 3 only automatic; and 11 only manual (5 did not specify). Twelve studies reported results for both manual and automatic processes and showed that a median of 23% (range from 13 to 42%) included automatic links to articles, while 17% (range from 5 to 42%) of registry entries required manual processes to find articles. There was no evidence that the proportion of registry entries with automatic links had increased (R 2?=?0.02, p?=?0.36). In 39 studies that examined cohorts of articles, 21 used automatic and manual processes; 9 only automatic; and 2 only manual (7 did not specify). Sixteen studies reported numbers for automatic and manual processes and indicated that a median of 49% (range from 8 to 97%) of articles had automatic links to registry entries, and 10% (range from 0 to 28%) required manual processes to find registry entries. There was no evidence that the proportion of articles with automatic links to registry entries had increased (R 2?=?0.01, p?=?0.73).The linkage of trial registries to their corresponding publications continues to require extensive manual processes. We did not find that the use of automatic linkage has increased over time. Further investigation is needed to inform approaches that will ensure publications are properly linked to trial registrations, thus enabling efficient monitoring of trial reporting.
| S-EPMC5494826 | biostudies-other
Project description:A substantial proportion of trial registrations are not linked to corresponding published articles, limiting analyses and new tools. Our aim was to develop a method for finding articles reporting the results of trials that are registered on ClinicalTrials.gov when they do not include metadata links. We used a set of 27,280 trial registration and article pairs to train and evaluate methods for identifying missing links in both directions-from articles to registrations and from registrations to articles. We trained a classifier with six distance metrics as feature representations to rank the correct article or registration, using recall@K to evaluate performance and compare to baseline methods. When identifying links from registrations to published articles, the classifier ranked the correct article first (recall@1) among 378,048 articles in 80.8% of evaluation cases and 34.9% in the baseline method. Recall@10 was 85.1% compared to 60.7% in the baseline. When predicting links from articles to registrations, recall@1 was 83.4% for the classifier and 39.8% in the baseline. Recall@10 was 89.5% compared to 65.8% in the baseline. The proposed method improves on our baseline document similarity method to be feasible for identifying missing links in practice. Given a ClinicalTrials.gov registration, a user checking 10 ranked articles can expect to identify the matching article in at least 85% of cases, if the trial has been published. The proposed method can be used to improve the coupling of ClinicalTrials.gov and PubMed, with applications related to automating systematic review and evidence synthesis processes.
| S-EPMC9090946 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: The Foods with Function Claims (FFC) was introduced in Japan in April 2015 to make more products available that are labeled with health functions. The products’ functionality of function claims must be explained by scientific evidence presented in systematic reviews (SRs), but the quality of recent SRs is unclear. This study assessed the quality of SRs in the FFC registered on the Consumer Affairs Agency (CAA) website in Japan. Methods: We searched the database from 1 April to 31 October 2022. Confidence in the methodological quality of each SR was evaluated by the AMSTAR 2 checklist. Results: Forty SRs were randomly extracted on the basis of the eligibility criteria and recruitment procedures. Overall confidence was rated as “high” (N = 0, 0%), “moderate” (N = 0, 0%), “low” (N = 2, 5%), or “critically low” (N = 38, 95%). The mean AMSTAR 2 score was 51.1% (SD 12.1%; range 19–73%). Among the 40 SRs, the number of critical domain deficiencies was 4 in 7.5% of SRs, 3 in 52.5% of SRs, 2 in 35% of SRs, and 1 in 5% of SRs. Registering the review’s protocol and comprehensive search strategies were particularly common deficiencies. Additionally, the risk of bias (RoB) was insufficiently considered. Conclusion: Overall, the methodological quality of the SRs based on the FFC, introduced eight years earlier, was very poor. This was especially true in the interpretation and discussion of critical domains, which had many deficiencies in terms of protocol registration, a comprehensive literature search strategy, and accounting for the RoB.
| S-EPMC10180741 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the consistency of causal statements in observational studies published in The BMJ.DesignReview of observational studies published in a general medical journal.Data sourceCohort and other longitudinal studies describing an exposure-outcome relationship published in The BMJ in 2018. We also had access to the submitted papers and reviewer reports.Main outcome measuresProportion of published research papers with 'inconsistent' use of causal language. Papers where language was consistently causal or non-causal were classified as 'consistently causal' or 'consistently not causal', respectively. For the 'inconsistent' papers, we then compared the published and submitted version.ResultsOf 151 published research papers, 60 described eligible studies. Of these 60, we classified the causal language used as 'consistently causal' (48%), 'inconsistent' (20%) and 'consistently not causal'(32%). Eleven out of 12 (92%) of the 'inconsistent' papers were already inconsistent on submission. The inconsistencies found in both submitted and published versions were mainly due to mismatches between objectives and conclusions. One section might be carefully phrased in terms of association while the other presented causal language. When identifying only an association, some authors jumped to recommending acting on the findings as if motivated by the evidence presented.ConclusionFurther guidance is necessary for authors on what constitutes a causal statement and how to justify or discuss assumptions involved. Based on screening these papers, we provide a list of expressions beyond the obvious 'cause' word which may inspire a useful more comprehensive compendium on causal language.
| S-EPMC8141434 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Since the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak was identified in December 2019 in Wuhan, China, a strong response from the research community has been observed with the proliferation of independent clinical trials assessing diagnostic methods, therapeutic and prophylactic strategies. While there is no intervention for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 with proven clinical efficacy to date, tools to distil the current research landscape by intervention, level of evidence and those studies likely powered to address future research questions is essential. This living systematic review aims to provide an open, accessible and frequently updated resource summarising the characteristics of COVID-19 clinical trial registrations. Weekly search updates of the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and source registries will be conducted. Data extraction by two independent reviewers of trial characteristic variables including categorisation of trial design, geographic location, intervention type and targets, level of evidence and intervention adaptability to low resource settings will be completed. Descriptive and thematic synthesis will be conducted. A searchable and interactive visualisation of the results database will be created, and made openly available online. Weekly results from the continued search updates will be published and made available on the Infectious Diseases Data Observatory (IDDO) website ( COVID-19 website). This living systematic review will provide a useful resource of COVID-19 clinical trial registrations for researchers in a rapidly evolving context. In the future, this sustained review will allow prioritisation of research targets for individual patient data meta-analysis.
| S-EPMC7141164 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Up-to-date information on the current progress made in the research and development to control the global COVID-19 pandemic is important. The study aimed to analyze the clinical trial characteristics and vaccine development progress of the new Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) registered with the World Health Organization International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP).A comprehensive search of COVID-19 clinical trials since the establishment of the ICTRP to June 11, 2020, was conducted to record and analyze relevant characteristics. Chi-Squared test was used to compare the statistical differences between different research types, interventions, and sources.A total of 3282 COVID-19 clinical trials in 17 clinical trial registration centers were registered with the WHO ICTRP. The main research sources for the present study were ClinicalTrials.gov and ChiCTR. There were significant differences in the parameters of study location (P = .000), number of participants (P = .000), study duration (P = .001), research stage (P = .000), randomization procedure (P = .000), and blinding method (P = .000) between the 2 registration sources. There were significant differences in all the parameters between different kinds of intervention methods. Hydroxychloroquine, plasma therapy, and Xiyanping injection were the high-frequency research drugs used. Ten different vaccine studies were registered under phases I-II.Amongst the studies researched, heterogeneity existed for various parameters. Differences in the type of study, interventions, and registration sources of the studies led to significant differences in certain parameters of the COVID-19 clinical trials. The statistics of high-frequency drugs and the progress of vaccine trials may provide an informative reference for the prevention and control of COVID-19.
| S-EPMC7581159 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Antimicrobial desensitization represents a last-line option for patients with no alternative therapies, where the benefits of this intensive process must outweigh the potential harm from drug exposure. The goal of antimicrobial desensitization procedures is to establish a temporary state of tolerance to drugs that may otherwise cause hypersensitivity reactions. While no universal antimicrobial desensitization protocols exist, this review critically analyzes previously published desensitization protocols. The purpose of this review is to provide a greater insight for clinicians and institutions to ensure desensitization procedures are efficacious while minimizing potential for patient harm. With an increasing rate of antimicrobial resistance and the critical need to preserve antimicrobial agents, desensitization may represent another option in our antimicrobial stewardship toolkit.
| S-EPMC6789802 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Since the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak was first reported in December 2019, many independent trials have been planned that aim to answer similar questions. Tools allowing researchers to review studies already underway can facilitate collaboration, cooperation and harmonisation. The Infectious Diseases Data Observatory (IDDO) has undertaken a living systematic review (LSR) to provide an open, accessible and frequently updated resource summarising characteristics of COVID-19 study registrations. Methods: Review of all eligible trial records identified by systematic searches as of 3 April 2020 and initial synthesis of clinical study characteristics were conducted. In partnership with Exaptive, an open access, cloud-based knowledge graph has been created using the results. Results: There were 728 study registrations which met eligibility criteria and were still active. Median (25 th, 75 th percentile) sample size was 130 (60, 400) for all studies and 134 (70, 300) for RCTs. Eight lower middle and low income countries were represented among the planned recruitment sites. Overall 109 pharmacological interventions or advanced therapy medicinal products covering 23 drug categories were studied. Majority (57%, 62/109) of them were planned only in one study arm, either alone or in combination with other interventions. There were 49 distinct combinations studied with 90% (44/49) of them administered in only one or two study arms. The data and interactive platform are available at https://iddo.cognitive.city/. Conclusions: Baseline review highlighted that the majority of investigations in the first three months of the outbreak were small studies with unique treatment arms, likely to be unpowered to provide solid evidence. The continued work of this LSR will allow a more dependable overview of interventions tested, predict the likely strength of evidence generated, allow fast and informative filtering of relevant trials for specific user groups and provide the rapid guidance needed by investigators and funders to avoid duplication of efforts.
| S-EPMC7610178 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Clinical trials are an essential part of evidence-based medicine. Hence, to ensure transparency and accountability in these clinical trials, policies for registration have been framed with emphasis on mandatory submission of trial elements, specifically outcome measures. As these efforts evolve further, we sought to evaluate the current status of endpoint reporting in clinical trial registries. METHODS:We reviewed 71 oncology related randomized controlled trials published in three high impact journals. We compared primary (PEP) and non-primary endpoints (NPEP) between the clinical trial protocols of these trials and their corresponding registration in one of the 14 primary global clinical trial registries. A discrepancy was defined as the non-reporting or absence of an endpoint in either the protocol or registry. The primary endpoint was the rate of discrepancy between secondary endpoints in clinical trial protocols and clinical trial registries. RESULTS:Of the 71 clinical trials, a discrepancy in PEP was found in only 4 trials (6%). Secondary endpoint (SEP) differences were found in 45 (63%) trials. Among these 45 trials, 36 (80%) had SEPs that were planned in the protocol but not reported in the registry and 19 (42%) had SEPs with endpoints in the registry that were not found in the protocol. The total number of SEPs that were absent from the corresponding registry and protocol were 84 and 29, respectively. Of these endpoints, 48 (57%) and 9 (31%) were included in the published report of these trials. CONCLUSION:Although recent regulations and enhanced procedures have improved the number and quality of clinical trial registrations, inconsistencies regarding endpoint reporting still exist. Though further guidelines for the registration of clinical trials will help, greater efforts to provide a correct, easily accessible, and complete representation of planned endpoints are needed.
| S-EPMC6292048 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectivesTo compare how allocation concealment is described in publications of randomised clinical trials and corresponding protocols, and to estimate how often trial publications with unclear allocation concealment have adequate concealment according to the protocol.DesignCohort study of 102 sets of trial protocols and corresponding publications.SettingProtocols of randomised trials approved by the scientific and ethical committees for Copenhagen and Frederiksberg, 1994 and 1995.Main outcome measuresFrequency of adequate, unclear, and inadequate allocation concealment and sequence generation in trial publications compared with protocols, and the proportion of protocols where methods were reported to be adequate but descriptions were unclear in the trial publications.Results96 of the 102 trials had unclear allocation concealment according to the trial publication. According to the protocols, 15 of these 96 trials had adequate allocation concealment (16%, 95% confidence interval 9% to 24%), 80 had unclear concealment (83%, 74% to 90%), and one had inadequate concealment. When retrospectively defined loose criteria for concealment were applied, 83 of the 102 trial publications had unclear concealment. According to their protocol, 33 of these 83 trials had adequate allocation concealment (40%, 29% to 51%), 49 had unclear concealment (59%, 48% to 70%), and one had inadequate concealment.ConclusionsMost randomised clinical trials have unclear allocation concealment on the basis of the trial publication alone. Most of these trials also have unclear allocation concealment according to their protocol.
| S-EPMC557221 | biostudies-literature