Dataset Information

Quality problems of clinical trials in China: evidence from quality related studies.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Recently, the quality of clinical trials conducted in China has made considerable progress. However, clinical trials conducted in China still fall below the global average standard. The aim of this systematic review was to assess studies that investigated the quality of clinical trials conducted in China, summarize the issues, and provide suggestions for conducting high-quality clinical trials in China.

Methods

We comprehensively searched studies that investigated the quality of clinical trials conducted in China in the following databases from inception to December 1, 2021: National Knowledge Infrastructure, the Chinese Science and Technology Periodical Database, WanFang Data, China Biology Medicine, PubMed, and Embase. We then analyzed the issues in clinical trial registration, ethics review, implementation, and reporting. SPSS 25.0 software was used for data analysis. The data synthesis was conducted using summary statistics and a narrative format.

Results

A total of 90 studies were analyzed, there were 50 studies with 0-5 citation counts (55.56%), 18 studies with 5-10 citation counts (20%), 9 studies with 10-15 citation counts (10%), and 13 studies with more than 15 citation counts (14.44%). Eight (8.89%) studies were conducted by a supervision department, 38 (42.22%) by organizations with GCP qualification, and 44 (48.89%) by third parties. Additionally, there were some problems in the ethical review process of clinical trials, clinical trial registration process, clinical trial implementation process, and clinical trial reporting process.

Conclusions

The current study shows that the quality problems of clinical trials in China still exist. The reported problems are related to the process of clinical trials, including ethical review, registration, implementation, reporting. Due to the limited quantity and quality of included studies, the conclusions of this study need to be verified by high-quality studies.

Review registration

Not registerated in PROSPERO.

SUBMITTER: Fan J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9034627 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Quality problems of clinical trials in China: evidence from quality related studies.

Fan Jin J Liu Xiaobo X Li Yuxi Y Xia Haisha H Yang Rong R Li Juan J Zhang Yonggang Y

Trials 20220423 1

<h4>Background</h4>Recently, the quality of clinical trials conducted in China has made considerable progress. However, clinical trials conducted in China still fall below the global average standard. The aim of this systematic review was to assess studies that investigated the quality of clinical trials conducted in China, summarize the issues, and provide suggestions for conducting high-quality clinical trials in China.<h4>Methods</h4>We comprehensively searched studies that investigated the q ...[more]

PMID: 35461304

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundStakeholders across the clinical trial enterprise have expressed concern that the current clinical trial enterprise is unsustainable. The cost and complexity of trials have continued to increase, threatening our ability to generate reliable evidence essential for making appropriate decisions concerning the benefits and harms associated with clinical interventions. Overcoming this inefficiency rests on improving protocol design, trial planning, and quality oversight.MethodsThe Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative convened a project to evaluate methods to prospectively build quality into the scientific and operational design of clinical trials ("quality-by-design"), such that trials are feasible to conduct and important errors are prevented rather than remediated. A working group evaluated aspects of trial design and oversight and developed the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative quality-by-design principles document, outlining a series of factors generally relevant to the reliability of trial conclusions and to patient safety. These principles were then applied and further refined during a series of hands-on workshops to evaluate their utility in facilitating proactive, cross-functional dialogue, and decision-making about trial design and planning. Following these workshops, independent qualitative interviews were conducted with 19 workshop attendees to explore the potential challenges for implementing a quality-by-design approach to clinical trials. The Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative project team subsequently developed recommendations and an online resource guide to support implementation of this approach.ConclusionThe Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative quality-by-design principles provide a framework for assuring that clinical trials adequately safeguard participants and provide reliable information on which to make decisions on the effects of treatments. The quality-by-design workshops highlighted the value of active discussions incorporating the different perspectives within and external to an organization (e.g. clinical investigators, research site staff, and trial participants) in improving trial design. Workshop participants also recognized the value of focusing oversight on those aspects of the trial where errors would have a major impact on participant safety and reliability of results. Applying the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative quality-by-design recommendations and principles should enable organizations to prioritize the most critical determinants of a trial's quality, identify non-essential activities that can be eliminated to streamline trial conduct and oversight, and formulate appropriate plans to define, avoid, mitigate, monitor, and address important errors.

Project description:BackgroundThis article aims to summarize the key characteristics of registered trials of 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19), in terms of their spatial and temporal distributions, types of design and interventions, and patient characteristics among others.MethodsA comprehensive search of the registered COVID-19 trials has been performed on platforms including ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), Chinese Clinical Trials Registry (CHiCTR), Australian Clinical Trials Registry, Britain's National Research Register (BNRR), Current Control Trials (CCT), and Glaxo Smith Kline Register. Trials registered at the first 8 weeks of the COVID-19 outbreak are included, without language restrictions. For each study, the registration information, study design, and administrator information are collected and summarized.ResultsA total of 220 registered trials were evaluated as of February 27, 2020. Hospital-initiated trials were the majority and account for 80% of the sample. Among the trials, pilot studies and phase 4 trials are more common and represent 35% and 19.1% of the sample, respectively. The median sample size of the registered trials is 100, with interquartile range 60-240. Further, 45.9% of the trials mentioned information on a data monitoring committee. 54.5% of the trials did not specify the disease severity among patients they intend to recruit. Four types of interventions are most common in the experimental groups across the registered studies: antiviral drugs, Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), biological agents, and hormone drugs. Among them, the TCM and biological agents are frequently used in pilot study and correspond to a variety of primary endpoints. In contrast, trials with antiviral drugs have more targeted primary outcomes such as "COVID-19 nucleic acid test" and "28-day mortality."ConclusionsWe provide an evidence mapping and analysis of registered COVID-19 clinical trials in China. In particular, it is critical for ongoing and future studies to refine their research hypothesis and better identify their intervention therapies and the corresponding primary outcomes. It is also imperative for multiple public health divisions and research institutions to work together for integrative clinical data capture and sharing, with a common objective of improving future studies that evaluate COVID-19 interventions.

Project description:Resveratrol (3,5,4'-trihydroxy-trans-stilbene) is a non-flavonoid polyphenol that may be present in a limited number of foodstuffs such as grapes and red wine. Resveratrol has been reported to exert a plethora of health benefits through many different mechanisms of action. This versatility and presence in the human diet have drawn the worldwide attention of many research groups over the past twenty years, which has resulted in a huge output of in vitro and animal (preclinical) studies. In line with this expectation, many resveratrol- based nutraceuticals are consumed all over the world with questionable clinical/scientific support. In fact, the confirmation of these benefits in humans through randomized clinical trials is still very limited. The vast majority of preclinical studies have been performed using assay conditions with a questionable extrapolation to humans, i.e. too high concentrations with potential safety concerns (adverse effects and drug interactions), short-term exposures, in vitro tests carried out with non-physiological metabolites and/or concentrations, etc. Unfortunately, all these hypothesis-generating studies have contributed to increased the number of 'potential' benefits and mechanisms of resveratrol but confirmation in humans is very limited. Therefore, there are many issues that should be addressed to avoid an apparent endless loop in resveratrol research. The so-called 'Resveratrol Paradox', i.e., low bioavailability but high bioactivity, is a conundrum not yet solved in which the final responsible actor (if any) for the exerted effects has not yet been unequivocally identified. It is becoming evident that resveratrol exerts cardioprotective benefits through the improvement of inflammatory markers, atherogenic profile, glucose metabolism and endothelial function. However, safety concerns remain unsolved regarding chronic consumption of high RES doses, specially in medicated people. This review will focus on the currently available evidence regarding resveratrol's effects on humans obtained from randomized clinical trials. In addition, we will provide a critical outlook for further research on this molecule that is evolving from a minor dietary compound to a possible multi-target therapeutic drug.

Project description:BackgroundMost publications about selective reporting in clinical trials have focussed on outcomes. However, selective reporting of analyses for a given outcome may also affect the validity of findings. If analyses are selected on the basis of the results, reporting bias may occur. The aims of this study were to review and summarise the evidence from empirical cohort studies that assessed discrepant or selective reporting of analyses in randomised controlled trials (RCTs).Methods and findingsA systematic review was conducted and included cohort studies that assessed any aspect of the reporting of analyses of RCTs by comparing different trial documents, e.g., protocol compared to trial report, or different sections within a trial publication. The Cochrane Methodology Register, Medline (Ovid), PsycInfo (Ovid), and PubMed were searched on 5 February 2014. Two authors independently selected studies, performed data extraction, and assessed the methodological quality of the eligible studies. Twenty-two studies (containing 3,140 RCTs) published between 2000 and 2013 were included. Twenty-two studies reported on discrepancies between information given in different sources. Discrepancies were found in statistical analyses (eight studies), composite outcomes (one study), the handling of missing data (three studies), unadjusted versus adjusted analyses (three studies), handling of continuous data (three studies), and subgroup analyses (12 studies). Discrepancy rates varied, ranging from 7% (3/42) to 88% (7/8) in statistical analyses, 46% (36/79) to 82% (23/28) in adjusted versus unadjusted analyses, and 61% (11/18) to 100% (25/25) in subgroup analyses. This review is limited in that none of the included studies investigated the evidence for bias resulting from selective reporting of analyses. It was not possible to combine studies to provide overall summary estimates, and so the results of studies are discussed narratively.ConclusionsDiscrepancies in analyses between publications and other study documentation were common, but reasons for these discrepancies were not discussed in the trial reports. To ensure transparency, protocols and statistical analysis plans need to be published, and investigators should adhere to these or explain discrepancies.

Project description:Background The prevalence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has endangered the psychological health of individuals. This study aimed to assess the quality of life and its related psychological problems during COVID-19 pandemic. Methods In this cross-sectional study, 559 citizens above the age of 16 years, in Isfahan and Bandar Abbas cities in Iran were selected with a convenient sampling method. An online questionnaire was used to collect the data, which consisted of five sections: demographic information, short health anxiety inventory (SHAI), perceived stress scale (PSS), world health organization quality of life questionnaire (WHOQOL-BREF) and Padua inventory. Data were analyzed using statistical tests including t-test, path analysis and structural equation modeling (SEM) using SPSS 24 and Amos 21 statistical software. Results A total of 559 subjects with the mean age of 37.34 ± 11.19 years participated in this study. Most of the participants were female (78.5%), married (71.6%) and employed (40.9%). The majority of them also had a bachelor’s degree (42.9%). There were significant negative correlations between perceived helplessness (r = -.597, p = .000), perceived stress (r = -.715, p = .000), risk of disease (r = -.302, p = .000), negative effect of disease (r = -.424, p = .000), health anxiety (r = -.366, p = .000), contamination obsessions (r = -.187, p = .000) and washing compulsions (r = -.193, p = .000) with quality of life. On other hand, significant positive correlation was found between perceived self-efficacy (r = .665, p = .000) and quality of life. Conclusions According to our findings, health anxiety, perceived stress and obsessive-compulsive disorder were negatively affected psychological health during COVID-19 which in turn decreased quality of life. Therefore, we suggest considering prevention and treatment of theses psychological problems to diminish the risk of reduced quality of life during COVID-19 global pandemic crisis.

Dataset Information

Quality problems of clinical trials in China: evidence from quality related studies.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Review registration

Publications

Quality problems of clinical trials in China: evidence from quality related studies.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets