Dataset Information

How often do US-based human subjects research studies register on time, and how often do they post their results? A statistical analysis of the Clinicaltrials.gov database.

ABSTRACT: The Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA) and the FDA Amendment Act of 2007 (FDAAA), respectively, established mandates for registration of interventional human research studies on the website clinicaltrials.gov (CTG) and for posting of results of completed studies.To characterise, contrast and explain rates of compliance with ontime registration of new studies and posting of results for completed studies on CTG.Statistical analysis of publically available data downloaded from the CTG website.US studies registered on CTG since 1 November 1999, the date when the CTG website became operational, through 24 June 2011, the date the data set was downloaded for analysis.Ontime registration (within 21 days of study start); average delay from study start to registration; proportion of studies posting their results from within the group of studies listed as completed on CTG.As of 24 June 2011, CTG contained 54 890 studies registered in the USA. Prior to 2005, an estimated 80% of US studies were not being registered. Among registered studies, only 55.7% registered within the 21-day reporting window. The average delay on CTG was 322 days. Between 28 September 2007 and June 23 2010, 28% of intervention studies at Phase II or beyond posted their study results on CTG, compared with 8.4% for studies without industry funding (RR 4.2, 95% CI 3.7 to 4.8). Factors associated with posting of results included exclusively paediatric studies (adjusted OR (AOR) 2.9, 95% CI 2.1 to 4.0), and later phase clinical trials (relative to Phase II studies, AOR for Phase III was 3.4, 95% CI 2.8 to 4.1; AOR for Phase IV was 6.0, 95% CI 4.8 to 7.6).Non-compliance with FDAMA and FDAAA appears to be very common, although compliance is higher for studies sponsored by industry. Further oversight may be required to improve compliance.

SUBMITTER: Gill CJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3432835 | biostudies-other | 2012

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

How often do US-based human subjects research studies register on time, and how often do they post their results? A statistical analysis of the Clinicaltrials.gov database.

Gill Christopher J CJ

BMJ open 20120829 4

<h4>Context</h4>The Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA) and the FDA Amendment Act of 2007 (FDAAA), respectively, established mandates for registration of interventional human research studies on the website clinicaltrials.gov (CTG) and for posting of results of completed studies.<h4>Objective</h4>To characterise, contrast and explain rates of compliance with ontime registration of new studies and posting of results for completed studies on CTG.<h4>Design</h4>Statistica ...[more]

PMID: 22936820

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesOccupational exposure assessment for population-based case-control studies is challenging due to the wide variety of industries and occupations encountered by study participants. We developed and evaluated statistical models to estimate the intensity of exposure to three chlorinated solvents-methylene chloride, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, and trichloroethylene-using a database of air measurement data and associated exposure determinants.MethodsA measurement database was developed after an extensive review of the published industrial hygiene literature. The database of nearly 3000 measurements or summary measurements included sample size, measurement characteristics (year, duration, and type), and several potential exposure determinants associated with the measurements: mechanism of release (e.g. evaporation), process condition, temperature, usage rate, type of ventilation, location, presence of a confined space, and proximity to the source. The natural log-transformed measurement levels in the exposure database were modeled as a function of the measurement characteristics and exposure determinants using maximum likelihood methods. Assuming a single lognormal distribution of the measurements, an arithmetic mean exposure intensity level was estimated for each unique combination of exposure determinants and decade.ResultsThe proportions of variability in the measurement data explained by the modeled measurement characteristics and exposure determinants were 36, 38, and 54% for methylene chloride, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, and trichloroethylene, respectively. Model parameter estimates for the exposure determinants were in the anticipated direction. Exposure intensity estimates were plausible and exhibited internal consistency, but the ability to evaluate validity was limited.ConclusionsThese prediction models can be used to estimate chlorinated solvent exposure intensity for jobs reported by population-based case-control study participants that have sufficiently detailed information regarding the exposure determinants.

Project description:BackgroundThe Interrupted Time Series (ITS) is a robust design for evaluating public health and policy interventions or exposures when randomisation may be infeasible. Several statistical methods are available for the analysis and meta-analysis of ITS studies. We sought to empirically compare available methods when applied to real-world ITS data.MethodsWe sourced ITS data from published meta-analyses to create an online data repository. Each dataset was re-analysed using two ITS estimation methods. The level- and slope-change effect estimates (and standard errors) were calculated and combined using fixed-effect and four random-effects meta-analysis methods. We examined differences in meta-analytic level- and slope-change estimates, their 95% confidence intervals, p-values, and estimates of heterogeneity across the statistical methods.ResultsOf 40 eligible meta-analyses, data from 17 meta-analyses including 282 ITS studies were obtained (predominantly investigating the effects of public health interruptions (88%)) and analysed. We found that on average, the meta-analytic effect estimates, their standard errors and between-study variances were not sensitive to meta-analysis method choice, irrespective of the ITS analysis method. However, across ITS analysis methods, for any given meta-analysis, there could be small to moderate differences in meta-analytic effect estimates, and important differences in the meta-analytic standard errors. Furthermore, the confidence interval widths and p-values for the meta-analytic effect estimates varied depending on the choice of confidence interval method and ITS analysis method.ConclusionsOur empirical study showed that meta-analysis effect estimates, their standard errors, confidence interval widths and p-values can be affected by statistical method choice. These differences may importantly impact interpretations and conclusions of a meta-analysis and suggest that the statistical methods are not interchangeable in practice.

Project description:BackgroundTrials often struggle to achieve their target sample size with only half doing so. Some researchers have turned to Electronic Health Records (EHRs), seeking a more efficient way of recruitment. The Scottish Health Research Register (SHARE) obtained patients' consent for their EHRs to be used as a searching base from which researchers can find potential participants. However, due to the fact that EHR data is not complete, sufficient or accurate, a database search strategy may not generate the best case-finding result. The current study aims to evaluate the performance of a case-based reasoning method in identifying participants for population-based clinical studies recruiting through SHARE, and assess the difference between its resultant cohort and the original one deriving from searching EHRs.MethodsA case-based reasoning framework was applied to 119 participants in nine projects using two-fold cross-validation, with records from a further 86,292 individuals used for testing. A prediction score for study participation was derived from the diagnosis, procedure, pharmaceutical prescription, and laboratory test results attributes of each participant. Evaluation was conducted by calculating Area Under the ROC Curve and information retrieval metrics for the ranking list of the test set by prediction score. We compared the most likely participants as identified by searching a database to those ranked highest by our model.ResultsThe average ROCAUC for nine projects was 81% indicating strong predictive ability for these data. However, the derived ranking lists showed lower predictive performance, with only 21% of the persons ranked within top 50 positions being the same as identified by searching databases.ConclusionsCase-based reasoning is may be more effective than a database search strategy for participant identification for clinical studies using population EHRs. The lower performance of ranking lists derived from case-based reasoning means that patients identified as highly suitable for study participation may still not be recruited. This suggests that further study is needed into improvements in the collection and curation of population EHRs, such as use of free text data to aid reliable identification of people more likely to be recruited to clinical trials.

Project description:IntroductionThe case for de-risking neurodegenerative research and development through highly informative experimental medicine studies early in the disease process is strong. Such studies depend on the availability of genetic as well as high-granularity, longitudinal, phenotypic data in healthy ageing individuals who can be recruited into early phase trials on the basis of their perceived dementia risk. Until now the creation of such research infrastructure has been hampered by the lack of expense and time required to gather the rich longitudinal data needed for adequate risk stratification. Dementias Platform UK (DPUK) is a public-private partnership that brings together data from over 40 cohorts in a standardised framework, which represent an until now unavailable opportunity to create such a resource through a streamlined brain health recontact platform based on existing cohorts, as well as prospectively collected data.Methods and analysisThe DPUK recontact platform consists of an opt-in (Great Minds, GM) and an opt-out component (Clinical Studies Register, CSR). GM requires invited DPUK cohort participants to consent to targeted recontact at the GM website and then to provide self-reported demographic and medical history information relevant to recruitment into clinical studies. Participants complete prospective browser-based and smartphone-based cognitive tests and are given the option for remote genetic and actigraphy testing. The GM data are linked to the retrospective DPUK cohort dataset, including genotypic and longitudinal phenotypic data. The CSR is a solution for cohorts explicitly allowing targeted recontact. Approved studies provide prescreening criteria on the basis of the CSR/GM dataset, and individuals meeting these criteria are offered participation directly (GM) or through the parent DPUK cohort (CSR). Descriptive statistics will be used to summarise the outcomes relevant to the number of participants engaged with the register. Its sample size is not defined but is limited by the size of the DPUK parent cohorts.Ethics and disseminationThe database was approved by the South Central-Oxford C Research Ethics Committee, reference 18/SC/0268 on the 27th of June 2018 and amended on the 1st of November 2019. The availability of the register to researchers will be disseminated through DPUK's official communication channels as well as national and international scientific meetings.

Dataset Information

How often do US-based human subjects research studies register on time, and how often do they post their results? A statistical analysis of the Clinicaltrials.gov database.

Publications

How often do US-based human subjects research studies register on time, and how often do they post their results? A statistical analysis of the Clinicaltrials.gov database.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets