A longitudinal assessment of trial protocols approved by research ethics committees: The Adherance to SPIrit REcommendations in the UK (ASPIRE-UK) study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
To assess the quality of reporting of RCT protocols approved by UK research ethics committees before and after the publication of the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guideline.Methods
We had access to RCT study protocols that received ethical approval in the UK in 2012 (n=103) and 2016 (n=108). From those, we assessed the adherence to the 33 SPIRIT items (i.e. a total of 64 components of the 33 SPIRIT items). We descriptively analysed the adherence to SPIRIT guidelines as proportion of adequately reported items (median and interquartile range [IQR]) and stratified the results by year of approval and sponsor.Results
The proportion of reported SPIRIT items increased from a median of 64.9% (IQR, 57.6-69.2%) in 2012 to a median of 72.5% (IQR, 65.3-78.3%) in 2016. Industry-sponsored RCTs reported more SPIRIT items in 2012 (median 67.4%; IQR, 64.1-69.4%) compared to non-industry-sponsored trials (median 59.8%; IQR, 46.5-67.7%). This gap between industry- and non-industry-sponsored trials increased in 2016 (industry-sponsored: median 75.6%; IQR, 71.2-79.0% vs non-industry-sponsored: median 65.3%; IQR, 51.6-76.3%).Conclusions
The adherence to SPIRIT guidelines has improved in the UK from 2012 to 2016 but remains on a modest level, especially for non-industry-sponsored RCTs.
SUBMITTER: Speich B
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9327179 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectivesTo assess the completeness of reporting of sample size determinations in unpublished research protocols and to develop guidance for research ethics committees and for statisticians advising these committees.DesignReview of original research protocols.Study selectionUnpublished research protocols for phase IIb, III, and IV randomised clinical trials of investigational medicinal products submitted to research ethics committees in the United Kingdom during 1 January to 31 December 2009.Main outcome measuresCompleteness of reporting of the sample size determination, including the justification of design assumptions, and disagreement between reported and recalculated sample size.Results446 study protocols were reviewed. Of these, 190 (43%) justified the treatment effect and 213 (48%) justified the population variability or survival experience. Only 55 (12%) discussed the clinical importance of the treatment effect sought. Few protocols provided a reasoned explanation as to why the design assumptions were plausible for the planned study. Sensitivity analyses investigating how the sample size changed under different design assumptions were lacking; six (1%) protocols included a re-estimation of the sample size in the study design. Overall, 188 (42%) protocols reported all of the information to accurately recalculate the sample size; the assumed withdrawal or dropout rate was not given in 177 (40%) studies. Only 134 of the 446 (30%) sample size calculations could be accurately reproduced. Study size tended to be over-estimated rather than under-estimated. Studies with non-commercial sponsors justified the design assumptions used in the calculation more often than studies with commercial sponsors but less often reported all the components needed to reproduce the sample size calculation. Sample sizes for studies with non-commercial sponsors were less often reproduced.ConclusionsMost research protocols did not contain sufficient information to allow the sample size to be reproduced or the plausibility of the design assumptions to be assessed. Greater transparency in the reporting of the determination of the sample size and more focus on study design during the ethical review process would allow deficiencies to be resolved early, before the trial begins. Guidance for research ethics committees and statisticians advising these committees is needed.
| S-EPMC3604970 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A novel Protocol Ethics Tool Kit ('Ethics Tool Kit') has been developed by a multi-stakeholder group of the Multi-Regional Clinical Trials Center of Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard. The purpose of the Ethics Tool Kit is to facilitate effective recognition, consideration and deliberation of critical ethical issues in clinical trial protocols. The Ethics Tool Kit may be used by investigators and sponsors to develop a dedicated Ethics Section within a protocol to improve the consistency and transparency between clinical trial protocols and research ethics committee reviews. It may also streamline ethics review and may facilitate and expedite the review process by anticipating the concerns of ethics committee reviewers. Specific attention was given to issues arising in multinational settings. With the use of this Tool Kit, researchers have the opportunity to address critical research ethics issues proactively, potentially speeding the time and easing the process to final protocol approval.
| S-EPMC4819642 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To determine levels of public registration for a cohort of clinical trials reviewed and given a favourable opinion by research ethics committees in the United Kingdom. STUDY DESIGN:Audit of records. SETTING:Clinical trials receiving a favourable ethics opinion between 1 January 2016 and 30 June 2016. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Correlation between trials on the UK research ethics committee database and any primary registry entry on the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform or clinicaltrials.gov as of 29 August 2017 (14 to 20 months after the favourable ethics committee opinion). RESULTS:Over the study period 1014 trials received a favourable ethics opinion, with 397 (39%) registered on the European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials database, and 18 with an agreed clinical trial registration deferral. Excluding these trials, the total number subsequently requiring registration was 599, and of these 405 (40% of total) were found to be registered. Follow-up with the 194 investigators or sponsors of trials not found to be registered produced 121 responses with a further 10 (1%) trials having already registered, 55 commitments to register and a variety of other responses. The overall registration rate was therefore 80%. CONCLUSIONS:Despite researchers and sponsors being reminded that registration of clinical trials is a condition of the research ethics committee (REC) favourable opinion, one-fifth of clinical trials either had not been registered, or their registration could not easily be found, 14 to 20 months after receiving the favourable opinion letter. The methodology trialled here proved effective, and although there are positive indications of a culture change towards greater registration, our results show that more still needs to be done to increase trial registration.
| S-EPMC6398673 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundThe synthesis of published research in systematic reviews is essential when providing evidence to inform clinical and health policy decision-making. However, the validity of systematic reviews is threatened if journal publications represent a biased selection of all studies that have been conducted (dissemination bias). To investigate the extent of dissemination bias we conducted a systematic review that determined the proportion of studies published as peer-reviewed journal articles and investigated factors associated with full publication in cohorts of studies (i) approved by research ethics committees (RECs) or (ii) included in trial registries.Methods and findingsFour bibliographic databases were searched for methodological research projects (MRPs) without limitations for publication year, language or study location. The searches were supplemented by handsearching the references of included MRPs. We estimated the proportion of studies published using prediction intervals (PI) and a random effects meta-analysis. Pooled odds ratios (OR) were used to express associations between study characteristics and journal publication. Seventeen MRPs (23 publications) evaluated cohorts of studies approved by RECs; the proportion of published studies had a PI between 22% and 72% and the weighted pooled proportion when combining estimates would be 46.2% (95% CI 40.2%-52.4%, I2 = 94.4%). Twenty-two MRPs (22 publications) evaluated cohorts of studies included in trial registries; the PI of the proportion published ranged from 13% to 90% and the weighted pooled proportion would be 54.2% (95% CI 42.0%-65.9%, I2 = 98.9%). REC-approved studies with statistically significant results (compared with those without statistically significant results) were more likely to be published (pooled OR 2.8; 95% CI 2.2-3.5). Phase-III trials were also more likely to be published than phase II trials (pooled OR 2.0; 95% CI 1.6-2.5). The probability of publication within two years after study completion ranged from 7% to 30%.ConclusionsA substantial part of the studies approved by RECs or included in trial registries remains unpublished. Due to the large heterogeneity a prediction of the publication probability for a future study is very uncertain. Non-publication of research is not a random process, e.g., it is associated with the direction of study findings. Our findings suggest that the dissemination of research findings is biased.
| S-EPMC4275183 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Ten years after the approval of the Chilean bill that regulates scientific research in humans (Law Nº 20.120), and considering the current status of accreditation and training of many Research Ethics Committee (REC), it is necessary to analyze their performance. We analyzed the Chilean experience with REC aiming to propose a differential type of review, considering the risks to research participants. To improve the quality of the review and the efficiency of these committees, we propose to differentiate the revisions depending on the type of project, its methods and its risks. Initially, the types of review should be classified as exempt from review, expedited review and full review by the committee. In this proposal the type of review is confirmed or can be modified by a designated member of the committee after an initial review of the project. Thus, the deliberation and review times of the committee could be optimized avoiding delays in their revision.
| S-EPMC8083817 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In the last decade, Paraguay has made progress in the development of health-related research involving human subjects. This entails the obligation of the State to ensure that research is conducted ethically: protecting the dignity, rights and welfare of the participants, scientific integrity and adherence to international ethical guidelines. Research Ethics Committees are the main instance or resource to guarantee the aforementioned obligation. In view of the above and the context lacking adequate regulation in which research is currently carried out in the country, this article will defend the ethical imperative of establishing an accreditation system for research ethics committees. To this end, its necessity will be presented and justified and some objections related to the ethical imperative defended will be answered, such as the per se value of the accreditation of research ethics committees in the protection of participants, the investment of time and bureaucracy involved in the accreditation processes and the incipient regulatory framework for research on human beings in Paraguay. Finally, it will be proposed to strengthen the governance of research ethics in the country, as the main means to establish, implement and supervise an accreditation system for research ethics committees.
| S-EPMC11349314 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Clearly structured and comprehensive protocols are an essential component to ensure safety of participants, data validity, successful conduct, and credibility of results of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Funding agencies, research ethics committees (RECs), regulatory agencies, medical journals, systematic reviewers, and other stakeholders rely on protocols to appraise the conduct and reporting of RCTs. In response to evidence of poor protocol quality, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guideline was published in 2013 to improve the accuracy and completeness of clinical trial protocols. The impact of these recommendations on protocol completeness and associations between protocol completeness and successful RCT conduct and publication remain uncertain. OBJECTIVES AND METHODS:Aims of the Adherence to SPIrit REcommendations (ASPIRE) study are to investigate adherence to SPIRIT checklist items of RCT protocols approved by RECs in the UK, Switzerland, Germany, and Canada before (2012) and after (2016) the publication of the SPIRIT guidelines; determine protocol features associated with non-adherence to SPIRIT checklist items; and assess potential differences in adherence across countries. We assembled an international cohort of RCTs based on 450 protocols approved in 2012 and 402 protocols approved in 2016 by RECs in Switzerland, the UK, Germany, and Canada. We will extract data on RCT characteristics and adherence to SPIRIT for all included protocols. We will use multivariable regression models to investigate temporal changes in SPIRIT adherence, differences across countries, and associations between SPIRIT adherence of protocols with RCT registration, completion, and publication of results. We plan substudies to examine the registration, premature discontinuation, and non-publication of RCTs; the use of patient-reported outcomes in RCT protocols; SPIRIT adherence of RCT protocols with non-regulated interventions; the planning of RCT subgroup analyses; and the use of routinely collected data for RCTs. DISCUSSION:The ASPIRE study and associated substudies will provide important information on the impact of measures to improve the reporting of RCT protocols and on multiple aspects of RCT design, trial registration, premature discontinuation, and non-publication of RCTs observing potential changes over time.
| S-EPMC7594472 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Screening for Down's syndrome forms part of routine obstetric practice. Ethical considerations relating to genetic screening form a major part of the workload of research ethics committees. This study investigated the attitudes of research ethics committee members to several conditions varying in clinical severity and prognosis, including Down's syndrome. METHODS:The members of 40 randomly chosen research ethics committees were surveyed. A simple questionnaire comprising 19 clinical scenarios based around four "clinical" conditions was designed to review conditions that were potentially embarrassing, affecting life span but not mental ability, premature death, and intellectual impairment with a risk of neonatal cardiac defects (Down's syndrome). Screening tests with different degrees of effectiveness were described and the diagnostic test descriptions ranged from having no risk to an unaffected fetus to causing spontaneous abortion of two normal fetuses for each affected fetus identified. Replies were graded on a scale of 1 to 5. RESULTS:Seventy seven replies were received from 28 different research ethics committees. Screening was supported for treatment of a life threatening condition (95% in favour) but screening for conditions of a slight increase in premature death (14% in favour) or cosmetic features (10% in favour) were considered unethical. Views were ambiguous (49% in favour) about conditions involving significant shortening of lifespan. Down's syndrome screening was considered more ethical when described as a serious condition (56% in favour) than when the clinical features were described (44% in favour). Once increased rates of spontaneous abortion on confirmatory testing were added, 79% (21% in favour) and 86% (14% in favour) stated that screening was unethical (for "serious" and "clinical features" descriptions, respectively). CONCLUSIONS:Down's syndrome screening raises ethical concerns about genetic testing in general that need to be dealt with before the introduction of any prenatal screening test.
| S-EPMC1769927 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND AND METHODS:Psychiatric research can occasionally present particular ethical dilemmas, but it is not clear what kind of problems local research ethics committees (LRECs) actually experience in this field. We aimed to assess the type of problems that committees encounter with psychiatric research, using a postal survey of 211 LRECs. RESULTS:One hundred and seven (51%) of those written to replied within the time limit. Twenty eight (26%) experienced few problems with psychiatric applications. Twenty six (24%) emphasised the value of a psychiatric expert on the committee. The most common issues raised were informed consent (n=64, 60%) and confidentiality (n=17, 16%). The use of placebos (and washout periods) (n=18, 17%), the validity of psychiatric questionnaires (n=16, 15%) and overuse of psychiatric "jargon" (n=14, 13%) in psychiatric applications also raised concern. CONCLUSIONS:Our results suggest that LRECs have specific concerns regarding methodology, consent, and confidentiality in psychiatric research, and that they find psychiatric input invaluable.
| S-EPMC1733685 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine data sharing and number of publications coming from research databases that have been given a favourable opinion by UK National Health Service (NHS) Research Ethics Committees (RECs).DesignCohort study.Inclusion criteria & settingAll research databases listed on the UK Health Research Authority's Assessment Review Portal (HARP) that had received a favourable ethics opinion as of January 2018.Main outcome measuresPublications and data access requests are either listed on HARP or notified through subsequent email correspondence.ResultsOut of 354 eligible databases, 34% had granted access requests and 40% had produced at least one peer-reviewed paper or conference abstract/talk. We could not establish contact with 9% of databases, and 19% reported no access requests or publications. Only 9% of databases were up to date with all annual reports. Email responses from database owners showed a range of attitudes towards data sharing.ConclusionLess than half of research databases that have received a favourable opinion from NHS research ethics committees share their data and produce publications. There is also considerable variability in the operation of research databases and understanding of the purpose of research databases. This work was hampered by incomplete records due mainly to researchers not submitting annual reports.
| S-EPMC7528358 | biostudies-literature