Search

Background: The number of children who require palliative care has been estimated to be as high as 21 million globally. Delivering effective children's palliative care (CPC) services requires accurate population-level information on current and future CPC need, but quantifying need is hampered by challenges in defining the population in need, and by limited available data. The objective of this paper is to summarise how population-level CPC need is defined, and quantified, in the literature. Methods: Scoping review performed in line with Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews and PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Six online databases (CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Medline, PsycINFO, and Web of Science), and grey literature, were searched. Inclusion criteria: literature published in English; 2008–2023 (Oct); including children aged 0–19 years; focused on defining and/or quantifying population-level need for palliative care. Results: Three thousand five hundred seventy-eight titles and abstracts initially reviewed, of which, 176 full-text studies were assessed for eligibility. Overall, 51 met the inclusion criteria for this scoping review. No universal agreement identified on how CPC need was defined in population-level policy and planning discussions. In practice, four key definitions of CPC need were found to be commonly applied in quantifying population-level need: (1) ACT/RCPCH (Association for Children with Life-Threatening or Terminal Conditions and their Families, and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health) groups; (2) The 'Directory' of Life-Limiting Conditions; (3) 'List of Life-Limiting Conditions'; and (4) 'Complex Chronic Conditions'. In most cases, variations in data availability drove the methods used to quantify population-level CPC need and only a small proportion of articles incorporated measures of complexity of CPC need. Conclusion: Overall, greater consistency in how CPC need is defined for policy and planning at a population-level is important, but with sufficient flexibility to allow for regional variations in epidemiology, demographics, and service availability. Improvements in routine data collection of a wide range of care complexity factors could facilitate estimation of population-level CPC need and ensure greater alignment with how need for CPC is defined at the individual-level in the clinical setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Natural Language Processing (NLP) has been adopted widely in clinical trial matching for its ability to process unstructured text hat is often found in electronic health records. Despite the rise n the new tools that use NLP to match patients to eligible clinical rials, the comparison of these tools is difficult due to the lack of consistency in how these tools are evaluated. The ground truth or eference that the tools use to assess results varies, making it difficult to compare the robustness of the tools against each other. This paper alarms the lack of definition and consistency of ground truth data used to evaluate such tools and suggests two ways to define a gold standard for the ground truth in small and arge-scale studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background The number of children who require palliative care has been estimated to be as high as 21 million globally. Delivering effective children’s palliative care (CPC) services requires accurate population-level information on current and future CPC need, but quantifying need is hampered by challenges in defining the population in need, and by limited available data. The objective of this paper is to summarise how population-level CPC need is defined, and quantified, in the literature. Methods Scoping review performed in line with Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews and PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Six online databases (CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Medline, PsycINFO, and Web of Science), and grey literature, were searched. Inclusion criteria: literature published in English; 2008–2023 (Oct); including children aged 0–19 years; focused on defining and/or quantifying population-level need for palliative care. Results Three thousand five hundred seventy-eight titles and abstracts initially reviewed, of which, 176 full-text studies were assessed for eligibility. Overall, 51 met the inclusion criteria for this scoping review. No universal agreement identified on how CPC need was defined in population-level policy and planning discussions. In practice, four key definitions of CPC need were found to be commonly applied in quantifying population-level need: (1) ACT/RCPCH (Association for Children with Life-Threatening or Terminal Conditions and their Families, and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health) groups; (2) The ‘Directory’ of Life-Limiting Conditions; (3) ‘List of Life-Limiting Conditions’; and (4) ‘Complex Chronic Conditions’. In most cases, variations in data availability drove the methods used to quantify population-level CPC need and only a small proportion of articles incorporated measures of complexity of CPC need. Conclusion Overall, greater consistency in how CPC need is defined for policy and planning at a population-level is important, but with sufficient flexibility to allow for regional variations in epidemiology, demographics, and service availability. Improvements in routine data collection of a wide range of care complexity factors could facilitate estimation of population-level CPC need and ensure greater alignment with how need for CPC is defined at the individual-level in the clinical setting.

Clinical trials (CTs) often fail due to inadequate patient recruitment. Finding eligible patients involves comparing the patient's information with the CT eligibility criteria. Automated patient matching offers the promise of improving the process, yet the main difficulties of CT retrieval lie in the semantic complexity of matching unstructured patient descriptions with semi-structured, multi-field CT documents and in capturing the meaning of negation coming from the eligibility criteria. This paper tackles the challenges of CT retrieval by presenting an approach that addresses the patient-to-trials paradigm. Our approach involves two key components in a pipeline-based model: (i) a data enrichment technique for enhancing both queries and documents during the first retrieval stage, and (ii) a novel re-ranking schema that uses a Transformer network in a setup adapted to this task by leveraging the structure of the CT documents. We use named entity recognition and negation detection in both patient description and the eligibility section of CTs. We further classify patient descriptions and CT eligibility criteria into current, past, and family medical conditions. This extracted information is used to boost the importance of disease and drug mentions in both query and index for lexical retrieval. Furthermore, we propose a two-step training schema for the Transformer network used to re-rank the results from the lexical retrieval. The first step focuses on matching patient information with the descriptive sections of trials, while the second step aims to determine eligibility by matching patient information with the criteria section. Our findings indicate that the inclusion criteria section of the CT has a great influence on the relevance score in lexical models, and that the enrichment techniques for queries and documents improve the retrieval of relevant trials. The re-ranking strategy, based on our training schema, consistently enhances CT retrieval and shows improved performance by 15% in terms of precision at retrieving eligible trials. The results of our experiments suggest the benefit of making use of extracted entities. Moreover, our proposed re-ranking schema shows promising effectiveness compared to larger neural models, even with limited training data. These findings offer valuable insights for improving methods for retrieval of clinical documents. [Display omitted] • We conduct several experiments for the patient-to-trial matching retrieval problem. • Inclusion criteria section has the biggest influence on the score in lexical models. • Query and document enrichment techniques improve retrieval of relevant trials. • Age and gender-based filtering helped remove 26% ineligible trials. • Novel training strategy for re-ranking further increases retrieval effectiveness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Breast cancer (BC) is the most common cancer type in women. The purpose of this study was to assess the eligibility criteria in recent clinical trials in BC, especially those that can limit the enrollment of older patients as well as those with comorbidities and poor performance status. Methods: Data on clinical trials in BC were extracted from ClinicalTrials.gov. Co-primary outcomes were proportions of trials with different types of the eligibility criteria. Associations between trial characteristics and the presence of certain types of these criteria (binary variable) were determined with univariate and multivariate logistic regression. Results: Our analysis included 522 trials of systemic anticancer treatments started between 2020 and 2022. Upper age limits, strict exclusion criteria pertaining to comorbidities, and those referring to inadequate performance status of the patient were used in 204 (39%), 404 (77%), and 360 (69%) trials, respectively. Overall, 493 trials (94%) had at least one of these criteria. The odds of the presence of each type of the exclusion criteria were significantly associated with investigational site location and trial phase. We also showed that the odds of the upper age limits and the exclusion criteria involving the performance status were significantly higher in the cohort of recent trials compared with cohort of 309 trials started between 2010 and 2012 (39% vs 19% and 69% vs 46%, respectively; p < 0.001 for univariate and multivariate analysis in both comparisons). The proportion of trials with strict exclusion criteria was comparable between the two cohorts (p > 0.05). Only three of recent trials (1%) enrolled solely patients aged 65 or 70 and older. Conclusions: Many recent clinical trials in BC exclude large groups of patients, especially older adults, individuals with different comorbidities, and those with poor performance status. Careful modification of some of the eligibility criteria in these trials should be considered to allow investigators to assess the benefits and harms of investigational treatments in participants with characteristics typically encountered in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Adjustment for prognostic covariates increases the statistical power of randomized trials. The factors influencing the increase of power are well-known for trials with continuous outcomes. Here, we study which factors influence power and sample size requirements in time-to-event trials. We consider both parametric simulations and simulations derived from the Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) cohort of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients to assess how sample size requirements are reduced with covariate adjustment. Simulations demonstrate that the benefit of covariate adjustment increases with the prognostic performance of the adjustment covariate (C-index) and with the cumulative incidence of the event in the trial. For a covariate that has an intermediate prognostic performance (C-index=0.65), the reduction of sample size varies from 3.1% when cumulative incidence is of 10% to 29.1% when the cumulative incidence is of 90%. Broadening eligibility criteria usually reduces statistical power while our simulations show that it can be maintained with adequate covariate adjustment. In a simulation of adjuvant trials in HCC, we find that the number of patients screened for eligibility can be divided by 2.4 when broadening eligibility criteria. Last, we find that the Cox-Snell R C S 2 is a conservative estimation of the reduction in sample size requirements provided by covariate adjustment. Overall, more systematic adjustment for prognostic covariates leads to more efficient and inclusive clinical trials especially when cumulative incidence is large as in metastatic and advanced cancers. Code and results are available at https://github.com/owkin/CovadjustSim. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Day reporting centers (DRCs) vary considerably in how participant eligibility is determined and to date, there is little to no knowledge whether criteria for DRC eligibly are appropriately applied in program entrance. This study examines a statewide sample of individuals in community supervision settings and compares DRC eligibility criteria between DRC and non-DRC participants to examine differences between DRC participants and non-participants. Using a propensity score matched sample of 1,554 participants, study findings suggest that DRC participants show higher risk, need, and responsivity factors, consistent with the DRC programing model. These results suggest many individuals appear to be appropriately matched to DRCs, which may in turn, may influence their likelihood of program success, among other factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We examined eligibility criteria from recent oncology clinical trials to see whether real-world data (RWD) from electronic health records (EHRs) could be used to create external control groups for clinical trials. Trials were identified from the Aggregate Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov database; the selected trials were for oncology drugs approved by the FDA in 2020. Verbatim text from trial inclusion and exclusion criteria was qualitatively assessed by an expert panel to determine if criteria could be ascertained from structured and unstructured EHR data. Identified criteria were categorized (cancer-related, comorbidity-related, demographic, functional status, and trial operations) and subcategorized. Among 53 identified trials, 20 met the requirements for study inclusion, which included 463 eligibility criteria. Percentages of criteria by category were as follows: cancer-related factors (46%), comorbidities (20%), functional status (18%), trial operations (14%), and demographics (2%). For 18 of the 20 trials, 80% of the eligibility criteria could be ascertained with RWD; for 4 of the 20, it was 100%. When trial operation-specific criteria were excluded, all 20 met the 100% threshold. Our study indicates that both structured and unstructured data from community-based oncology-specific EHRs can be used for determining patient eligibility for external control arms for clinical trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Clinical trial protocols are the foundation for advancing medical sciences, however, the extraction of accurate and meaningful information from the original clinical trials is very challenging due to the complex and unstructured texts of such documents. Named entity recognition (NER) is a fundamental and necessary step to process and standardize the unstructured text in clinical trials using Natural Language Processing (NLP) techniques.Methods: In this study we fine-tuned pre-trained language models to support the NER task on clinical trial eligibility criteria. We systematically investigated four pre-trained contextual embedding models for the biomedical domain (i.e., BioBERT, BlueBERT, PubMedBERT, and SciBERT) and two models for the open domains (BERT and SpanBERT), for NER tasks using three existing clinical trial eligibility criteria corpora. In addition, we also investigated the feasibility of data augmentation approaches and evaluated their performance.Results: Our evaluation results using tenfold cross-validation show that domain-specific transformer models achieved better performance than the general transformer models, with the best performance obtained by the PubMedBERT model (F1-scores of 0.715, 0.836, and 0.622 for the three corpora respectively). The data augmentation results show that it is feasible to leverage additional corpora to improve NER performance.Conclusions: Findings from this study not only demonstrate the importance of contextual embeddings trained from domain-specific corpora, but also shed lights on the benefits of leveraging multiple data sources for the challenging NER task in clinical trial eligibility criteria text. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article is a case study of one of the few sports, rugby, that does not link national representation exclusively to citizenship. It discusses who may represent a country in major events and under which conditions. It analyses the consequences of the rules on different stakeholders; and discusses why the residency rule in particular is subject to much controversy. The author has conducted case studies of the 2019 rugby union and 2017 rugby league men’s World Cups. Academic literature, international news-papers, and rugby-specific websites were reviewed. Other than secondary sources, the researcher also collected primary data through interviews. The interviewees included representatives of Rugby League International Federation and World Rugby. This research reveals that national representation without citizenship is widespread in both codes of rugby. It has also shown that the effects of the eligibility criteria go beyond simplistic rich/poor and center/periphery models. This article argues that the rational for the eligibility criteria is the limited global spread of rugby league and rugby union. Without those lenient rules it would be difficult to organize international competitions.

Introduction: Pivotal Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) constitute scientific evidence in support of therapeutic choices when a drug is authorized in the market. In RCTs, patients are selected in a rigorous manner, in order to avoid bias that may influence efficacy assessments. Therefore, patients who take the drug in Real Life Studies (RLSs) are not the same as those participating in RCTs, which, in turn, leads to low data transferability from RCTs to RLS. The objective of this study was to evaluate the differences between RCTs and RLS, in terms of patient baseline characteristics. Materials and Methods: Our study includes all oral target therapies for RCC (Renal Cell Carcinoma) marketed in Europe before March 31, 2019. For each treatment, we considered both RCTs and RLSs, the former gathered from Summary of Product Characteristics published on the European Medicine Agency (EMA) website, and the latter yielded by our search in relevant literature. For each drug considered, we then compared the baseline characteristics of patients included in the RCT samples with those of the samples included in the RLSs using the Chi-squared and Mann-Whitney tests. Results: We considered six medicines, for a total of 9 pivotal RCTs and 31 RLSs. RCTs reported the same type of patient baseline characteristics, whereas RLSs are more varied in reporting. Some patient baseline characteristics (metastases, previous treatments, etc.) were significantly different between RCTs and RLs. Other characteristics, such as ECOG Performance Status, brain metastases, and comorbidities, liver and kidney failure, are comprised in exclusion criteria of RCTs, though are included in RLS. Discussion and Conclusion: While evaluating equal treatments for the same indications, RCTs and RLSs do not always assess patients with the same characteristics. It would be necessary to produce evidence from RLSs so as to have an idea of treatment effectiveness in patients groups that are not eligible or underrepresented in RCTs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The balance between ensuring blood donor and recipient safety while maintaining a sufficient blood supply can be affected by excessive deferral of blood donors. In 2018, a biannual regulatory review of donor eligibility criteria provided the South African National Blood Service (SANBS) the opportunity to review the existing criteria. Changes to these criteria were implemented in April 2019 after an extensive review. Study Design and Methods: We conducted a cross‐sectional study of SANBS whole‐blood donor presentations to determine the impact of the changed donor eligibility criteria on deferrals and blood safety. We compared donor presentations, deferrals, and HIV‐positive cases for the 12‐month period (April 2019–March 2020) after the implementation of the updated donor eligibility criteria to those of the previous year. Results: Of the 2,112,917 donor presentations, 51.1% (1079506) occurred in the post‐implementation study period. Overall, deferrals decreased from 18.6% to 14.5%, whereas HIV‐positive donations increased by 0.03%. A multivariable logistic regression analysis adjusted for sex, age, geographical location, donor, and clinic type showed significantly lower odds of deferral (OR 0.70; 95% CI: 0.69–0.70) and greater odds of HIV‐positive cases in the study period than those in the control period (OR 1.17; 95% CI: 1.10–1.25). Conclusion: We confirmed that the change in donor eligibility criteria was associated with a decrease in deferrals and an increase in the country's blood supply. The impact of the increased number of HIV‐positive donations on blood safety in a country performing individual donation nucleic acid amplification testing requires further investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Eligibility criteria are a fundamental element of clinical trial design, defining who can and who should not participate in a trial. Problems with the design or application of criteria are known to occur and pose risks to participants' safety and trial integrity, sometimes also negatively impacting on trial recruitment and generalisability. We conducted a short, exploratory survey to gather evidence on UK recruiters' experiences interpreting and applying eligibility criteria and their views on how criteria are communicated and developed. Methods: Our survey included topics informed by a wider programme of work at the Clinical Trials Research Unit, University of Leeds, on assuring eligibility criteria quality. Respondents were asked to answer based on all their trial experience, not only on experiences with our trials. The survey was disseminated to recruiters collaborating on trials run at our trials unit, and via other mailing lists and social media. The quantitative responses were descriptively analysed, with inductive analysis of free-text responses to identify themes. Results: A total of 823 eligible respondents participated. In total, 79% of respondents reported finding problems with eligibility criteria in some trials, and 9% in most trials. The main themes in the types of problems experienced were criteria clarity (67% of comments), feasibility (34%), and suitability (14%). In total, 27% of those reporting some level of problem said these problems had led to patients being incorrectly included in trials; 40% said they had led to incorrect exclusions. Most respondents (56%) reported accessing eligibility criteria mainly in the trial protocol. Most respondents (74%) supported the idea of recruiter review of eligibility criteria earlier in the protocol development process. Conclusions: Our survey corroborates other evidence about the existence of suboptimal trial eligibility criteria. Problems with clarity were the most often reported, but the number of comments on feasibility and suitability suggest some recruiters feel eligibility criteria and associated assessments can hinder recruitment to trials. Our proposal for more recruiter involvement in protocol development has strong support and some potential benefits, but questions remain about how best to implement this. We invite other trialists to consider our other suggestions for how to assure quality in trial eligibility criteria. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Juvenile drug treatment courts (JDTCs), in large part, are a product of the therapeutic jurisprudence movement. When they were established in 1993 in the U.S., JDTCs were initially modeled after adult drug treatment courts but insufficiently addressed unique characteristics of adolescence. In 2003, recommended practices, known as the 16 Strategies, for JDTCs working with adolescent offenders with substance use disorders were introduced to the field by the National Drug Court Institute (NDCI) and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ). Recently, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) and the American Institute of Research (AIR), proposed a set of evidence‐based, recommended practices outlined in the Juvenile Drug Treatment Court Guidelines (JDTC Guideline). However, little research examines the effectiveness of training and technical assistance on recommended, evidence‐based practices for JDTC teams. The current study uses a pre/post‐training survey design to examine perceived and actual knowledge gain of JDTC practitioners who receive targeted training and technical assistance on recommended practices for JDTCs. The data demonstrate significantly higher perceived knowledge gain, post‐training, on the topics of recommended practice (as outlined in the 16 Strategies and JDTC Guidelines). Implications are discussed. Key Points for the Family Court Community: Juvenile Drug Treatment Courts (JDTCs) can receive onsite training and technical assistance (TTA)TTA can increase JDTC team members' perceived knowledge in various domains such as adolescent development, JDTC best practices, and role discriminationTTA can also increase awareness and knowledge of local JDTC eligibility criteriaThere is need for JDTCs to constantly improve and update practices to comport with current best practices, and TTA might be a way for courts to accomplish this [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Evidence supports the presence of comorbid conditions, e.g., irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), in individuals with fibromyalgia (FM). Physical therapy plays an essential role in the treatment of FM; however, it is not currently known whether the IBS comorbidity is considered in the selection criteria for clinical trials evaluating physiotherapy in FM. Thus, the aim of the review was to identify whether the presence of IBS was considered in the selection criteria for study subjects for those clinical trials that have been highly cited or published in the high-impact journals investigating the effects of physical therapy in FM. A literature search in the Web of Science database for clinical trials that were highly cited or published in high-impact journals, i.e., first second quartile (Q1) of any category of the Journal Citation Report (JCR), investigating the effects of physical therapy in FM was conducted. The methodological quality of the selected trials was assessed with the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale. Authors, affiliations, number of citations, objectives, sex/gender, age, and eligibility criteria of each article were extracted and analyzed independently by two authors. From a total of the 412 identified articles, 20 and 61 clinical trials were included according to the citation criterion or JCR criterion, respectively. The PEDro score ranged from 2 to 8 (mean: 5.9, SD: 0.1). The comorbidity between FM and IBS was not considered within the eligibility criteria of the participants in any of the clinical trials. The improvement of the eligibility criteria is required in clinical trials on physical therapy that include FM patients to avoid selection bias. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]