Search

Background: Sponsors that seek to commercialize new drugs apply to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) which independently analyzes the raw data and reports the results on its website. Objectives: This study sought to determine if there are differences between the FDA assessments and journal reports on biologic agents developed for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Methods: Available data on FDA-approved drugs were extracted from the website, and a systematic literature search was conducted to identify matching studies in peer-reviewed medical journals. Outcome measures were the American College of Rheumatology response criteria ACR20 (efficacy) and withdrawal due to adverse events (safety). As effect size odds ratios were estimated for each active trial arm vs. control arm (i.e. for both sources: FDA and journal report), followed by calculation of the ratios of the FDA and journal report odds ratios. A ratio of odds ratios not equal to 1 was categorized as a discrepancy. Results: FDA reports were available for 8 of 9 FDA-approved biologic agents for rheumatoid arthritis; all identified trials (34) except one were published in peer-reviewed journals. Overall, discrepancies were noted for 20 of the 33 evaluated trials. Differences in the apparent benefit reporting were found in 39% (24/61) pairwise comparisons and in 11 cases these were statistically significant; the FDA report showed greater benefit than the journal publication in 15 comparisons and lesser benefit in 9. Differences in the reported harms were found in 51% (28/55) pairwise comparisons and were statistically significant in 5. The “signal” in FDA reports showed a less harmful effect than the journal publication in 17 comparisons whereas a more harmful effect in 11. The differences were attributed to differences in analytic approach, patient inclusion, rounding effect, and counting discrepancies. However, no differences were categorized as critical. Conclusion: There was no empirical evidence to suggest biased estimates between the two sources. Increased and detailed transparency in publications would improve the understanding and credibility of published results. Further, the FDA report was found to be a useful source when data are missing in the published report (i.e. reporting bias). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In silico clinical trials (ISCTs) are an emerging method in modeling and simulation where medical interventions are evaluated using computational models of patients. ISCTs have the potential to provide cost-effective, time-efficient, and ethically favorable alternatives for evaluating the safety and effectiveness of medical devices. However, ensuring the credibility of ISCT results is a significant challenge. This paper aims to identify unique considerations for assessing the credibility of ISCTs and proposes an ISCT credibility assessment workflow based on recently published model assessment frameworks. First, we review various ISCTs described in the literature, carefully selected to showcase the range of methodological options available. These studies cover a wide variety of devices, reasons for conducting ISCTs, patient model generation approaches including subject-specific versus 'synthetic' virtual patients, complexity levels of devices and patient models, incorporation of clinician or clinical outcome models, and methods for integrating ISCT results with real-world clinical trials. We next discuss how verification, validation, and uncertainty quantification apply to ISCTs, considering the range of ISCT approaches identified. Based on our analysis, we then present a hierarchical workflow for assessing ISCT credibility, using a general credibility assessment framework recently published by the FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Overall, this work aims to promote standardization in ISCTs and contribute to the wider adoption and acceptance of ISCTs as a reliable tool for evaluating medical devices. Author summary: A new method for evaluating a medical device is an in silico clinical trial, where the device performance is tested using computational models representing a cohort of patients. Demonstrating that in silico clinical trials are reliable is clearly of paramount importance. However, little information is available on how to ensure this. In this paper we present a workflow for evaluating an in silico clinical trial. This workflow was developed by considering a wide-ranging sample of previously published in silico clinical trials, together with a detailed assessment of how specific model evaluation activities apply to in silico clinical trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The CONSORT Statement is a reporting guideline for authors when reporting randomized controlled trials (RCTs). It offers a standard way for authors to prepare RCT reports. It has been endorsed by many high-impact medical journals and by international editorial groups. This study was conducted to assess the endorsement of the CONSORT Statement by high-impact medical journals in China by reviewing their instructions for authors. Methodology/Principal Findings: A total of 200 medical journals were selected according to the Chinese Science and Technology Journal Citation Reports, 195 of which publish clinical research papers. Their instructions for authors were reviewed and all texts mentioning the CONSORT Statement or CONSORT extension papers were extracted. Any mention of the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals (URM) developed by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) or 'clinical trial registration' was also extracted. For journals endorsing the CONSORT Statement, their most recently published RCT reports were retrieved and evaluated to assess whether the journals have followed what the CONSORT Statement required. Out of the 195 medical journals publishing clinical research papers, only six (6/195, 3.08%) mentioned 'CONSORT' in their instructions for authors; out of the 200 medical journals surveyed, only 14 (14/200, 7.00%) mentioned 'ICMJE' or 'URM' in their instructions for authors, and another five journals stated in their instructions for authors that clinical trials should have trial registration numbers and that priority would be given to clinical trials which had been registered. Among the 62 RCT reports published in the six journals endorsing the CONSORT Statement, 20 (20/62, 32.26%) contained flow diagrams and only three (3/62, 4.84%) provided trial registration information. Conclusions/Significance: Medical journals in China endorsing either the CONSORT Statement or the ICMJE's URM constituted a small percentage of the total; all of these journals used ambiguous language regarding what was expected of authors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In the context of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) on HIV testing in the emergency department (ED) setting, we evaluated preferences for survey modality and data quality arising from each modality. Methods: Enrolled participants were offered the choice of answering a survey via audio computer assisted self-interview (ACASI) or pen and paper self-administered questionnaire (SAQ). We evaluated factors influencing choice of survey modality. We defined unusable data for a particular survey domain as answering fewer than 75% of the questions in the domain. We then compared ACASI and SAQ with respect to unusable data for domains that address sensitive topics. Results: Of 758 enrolled ED patients, 218 (29%) chose ACASI, 343 chose SAQ (45%) and 197 (26%) opted not to complete either. Results of the log-binomial regression indicated that older (RR = 1.08 per decade) and less educated participants (RR = 1.25) were more likely to choose SAQ over ACASI. ACASI yielded substantially less unusable data than SAQ. Conclusions: In the ED setting there may be a tradeoff between increased participation with SAQ versus better data quality with ACASI. Future studies of novel approaches to maximize the use of ACASI in the ED setting are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Poor representation of pregnant and lactating women and people in clinical trials has marginalised their health concerns and denied the maternal–fetal/infant dyad benefits of innovation in therapeutic research and development. This mixed-methods systematic review synthesised factors affecting the participation of pregnant and lactating women in clinical trials, across all levels of the research ecosystem. Methods and findings: We searched 8 databases from inception to 14 February 2024 to identify qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies that described factors affecting participation of pregnant and lactating women in vaccine and therapeutic clinical trials in any setting. We used thematic synthesis to analyse the qualitative literature and assessed confidence in each qualitative review finding using the GRADE-CERQual approach. We compared quantitative data against the thematic synthesis findings to assess areas of convergence or divergence. We mapped review findings to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation Model of Behaviour (COM-B) to inform future development of behaviour change strategies. We included 60 papers from 27 countries. We grouped 24 review findings under 5 overarching themes: (a) interplay between perceived risks and benefits of participation in women's decision-making; (b) engagement between women and the medical and research ecosystems; (c) gender norms and decision-making autonomy; (d) factors affecting clinical trial recruitment; and (e) upstream factors in the research ecosystem. Women's willingness to participate in trials was affected by: perceived risk of the health condition weighed against an intervention's risks and benefits, therapeutic optimism, intervention acceptability, expectations of receiving higher quality care in a trial, altruistic motivations, intimate relationship dynamics, and power and trust in medicine and research. Health workers supported women's participation in trials when they perceived clinical equipoise, had hope for novel therapeutic applications, and were convinced an intervention was safe. For research staff, developing reciprocal relationships with health workers, having access to resources for trial implementation, ensuring the trial was visible to potential participants and health workers, implementing a woman-centred approach when communicating with potential participants, and emotional orientations towards the trial were factors perceived to affect recruitment. For study investigators and ethics committees, the complexities and subjectivities in risk assessments and trial design, and limited funding of such trials contributed to their reluctance in leading and approving such trials. All included studies focused on factors affecting participation of cisgender pregnant women in clinical trials; future research should consider other pregnancy-capable populations, including transgender and nonbinary people. Conclusions: This systematic review highlights diverse factors across multiple levels and stakeholders affecting the participation of pregnant and lactating women in clinical trials. By linking identified factors to frameworks of behaviour change, we have developed theoretically informed strategies that can help optimise pregnant and lactating women's engagement, participation, and trust in such trials. Using a mixed-methods approach, Mridula Shankar and colleagues investigate the reasons why those who are pregnant and breastfeeding are under-represented in clinical trials. Author summary: Why was this study done?: Pregnant and lactating women and people are routinely excluded from participating in drug and vaccine clinical trials, resulting in limited options for prevention and treatment of medical conditions. Challenges to including pregnant and lactating women and people in clinical research have been identified at multiple levels of the research and health systems, but the full range of barriers and facilitators to participation are not well known. What did the researchers do and find?: We conducted a mixed-methods systematic review and identified 60 research articles from 27 countries on the views and experiences of pregnant and lactating women's participation in clinical research, from the perspectives of cisgender women, family and community members, health workers, and people involved in the conduct of clinical research. Using a thematic synthesis approach, we identified barriers affecting participation including women having a limited appetite for risk during pregnancy and lactation, concerns about women's bodily autonomy during pregnancy, and challenges in obtaining ethical approval for clinical research with pregnant women. We also identified facilitators of participation including the potential for personal health benefits, expectations of higher quality care, trust in the medical and research systems, and strong teamwork between researchers and health workers. What do these findings mean?: Our findings demonstrate the need for multipronged strategies to address barriers and reinforce facilitators across the various levels of the research and health systems. The actions that are needed to overcome these barriers and reinforce facilitators must be discussed, prioritised, and adapted to specific contexts. All included studies focused on factors affecting participation of cisgender pregnant women in clinical trials; future research should consider other pregnancy-capable populations, including transgender and nonbinary people. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Fundamental scientific advances can take decades to translate into improvements in human health. Shortening this interval would increase the rate at which scientific discoveries lead to successful treatment of human disease. One way to accomplish this would be to identify which advances in knowledge are most likely to translate into clinical research. Toward that end, we built a machine learning system that detects whether a paper is likely to be cited by a future clinical trial or guideline. Despite the noisiness of citation dynamics, as little as 2 years of postpublication data yield accurate predictions about a paper's eventual citation by a clinical article (accuracy = 84%, F1 score = 0.56; compared to 19% accuracy by chance). We found that distinct knowledge flow trajectories are linked to papers that either succeed or fail to influence clinical research. Translational progress in biomedicine can therefore be assessed and predicted in real time based on information conveyed by the scientific community's early reaction to a paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Little is known about how adverse events are summarised and reported in trials, as detailed information is usually considered confidential. We have acquired clinical study reports (CSRs) from the European Medicines Agency through the Freedom of Information Act. The CSRs describe the results of studies conducted as part of the application for marketing authorisation for the slimming pill orlistat. The purpose of this study was to study how adverse events were summarised and reported in study protocols, CSRs, and published papers of orlistat trials.Methods and Findings: We received the CSRs from seven randomised placebo controlled orlistat trials (4,225 participants) submitted by Roche. The CSRs consisted of 8,716 pages and included protocols. Two researchers independently extracted data on adverse events from protocols and CSRs. Corresponding published papers were identified on PubMed and adverse event data were extracted from this source as well. All three sources were compared. Individual adverse events from one trial were summed and compared to the totals in the summary report. None of the protocols or CSRs contained instructions for investigators on how to question participants about adverse events. In CSRs, gastrointestinal adverse events were only coded if the participant reported that they were "bothersome," a condition that was not specified in the protocol for two of the trials. Serious adverse events were assessed for relationship to the drug by the sponsor, and all adverse events were coded by the sponsor using a glossary that could be updated by the sponsor. The criteria for withdrawal due to adverse events were in one case related to efficacy (high fasting glucose led to withdrawal), which meant that one trial had more withdrawals due to adverse events in the placebo group. Finally, only between 3% and 33% of the total number of investigator-reported adverse events from the trials were reported in the publications because of post hoc filters, though six of seven papers stated that "all adverse events were recorded." For one trial, we identified an additional 1,318 adverse events that were not listed or mentioned in the CSR itself but could be identified through manually counting individual adverse events reported in an appendix. We discovered that the majority of patients had multiple episodes of the same adverse event that were only counted once, though this was not described in the CSRs. We also discovered that participants treated with orlistat experienced twice as many days with adverse events as participants treated with placebo (22.7 d versus 14.9 d, p-value < 0.0001, Student's t test). Furthermore, compared with the placebo group, adverse events in the orlistat group were more severe. None of this was stated in the CSR or in the published paper. Our analysis was restricted to one drug tested in the mid-1990s; our results might therefore not be applicable for newer drugs.Conclusions: In the orlistat trials, we identified important disparities in the reporting of adverse events between protocols, clinical study reports, and published papers. Reports of these trials seemed to have systematically understated adverse events. Based on these findings, systematic reviews of drugs might be improved by including protocols and CSRs in addition to published articles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The European & Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP) is a partnership of European and sub-Saharan African countries that aims to accelerate the development of medical interventions against poverty-related diseases (PRDs). A bibliometric analysis was conducted to 1) measure research output from European and African researchers on PRDs, 2) describe collaboration patterns, and 3) assess the citation impact of clinical research funded by EDCTP. Methodology/Principal Findings: Disease-specific research publications were identified in Thomson Reuters Web of Science using search terms in titles, abstracts and keywords. Publication data, including citation counts, were extracted for 2003–2011. Analyses including output, share of global papers, normalised citation impact (NCI), and geographical distribution are presented. Data are presented as five-year moving averages. European EDCTP member countries accounted for ~33% of global research output in PRDs and sub-Saharan African countries for ~10% (2007–2011). Both regions contributed more to the global research output in malaria (43.4% and 22.2%, respectively). The overall number of PRD papers from sub-Saharan Africa increased markedly (>47%) since 2003, particularly for HIV/AIDS (102%) and tuberculosis (TB) (81%), and principally involving Southern and East Africa. For 2007–2011, European and sub-Saharan African research collaboration on PRDs was highly cited compared with the world average (NCI in brackets): HIV/AIDS 1.62 (NCI: 1.16), TB 2.11 (NCI: 1.06), malaria 1.81 (NCI: 1.22), and neglected infectious diseases 1.34 (NCI: 0.97). The NCI of EDCTP-funded papers for 2003–2011 was exceptionally high for HIV/AIDS (3.24), TB (4.08) and HIV/TB co-infection (5.10) compared with global research benchmarks (1.14, 1.05 and 1.35, respectively). Conclusions: The volume and citation impact of papers from sub-Saharan Africa has increased since 2003, as has collaborative research between Europe and sub-Saharan Africa. >90% of publications from EDCTP-funded research were published in high-impact journals and are highly cited. These findings corroborate the benefit of collaborative research on PRDs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Evaluative bibliometrics uses advanced techniques to assess the impact of scholarly work in the context of other scientific work and usually compares the relative scientific contributions of research groups or institutions. Using publications from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) HIV/AIDS extramural clinical trials networks, we assessed the presence, performance, and impact of papers published in 2006-2008. Through this approach, we sought to expand traditional bibliometric analyses beyond citation counts to include normative comparisons across journals and fields, visualization of co-authorship across the networks, and assess the inclusion of publications in reviews and syntheses. Specifically, we examined the research output of the networks in terms of the a) presence of papers in the scientific journal hierarchy ranked on the basis of journal influence measures, b) performance of publications on traditional bibliometric measures, and c) impact of publications in comparisons with similar publications worldwide, adjusted for journals and fields. We also examined collaboration and interdisciplinarity across the initiative, through network analysis and modeling of coauthorship patterns. Finally, we explored the uptake of network produced publications in research reviews and syntheses. Overall, the results suggest the networks are producing highly recognized work, engaging in extensive interdisciplinary collaborations, and having an impact across several areas of HIV-related science. The strengths and limitations of the approach for evaluation and monitoring research initiatives are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Monitoring of clinical trials is critical to the protection of human subjects and the conduct of high-quality research. Even though the adoption of risk-based monitoring (RBM) has been suggested for many years, the RBM approach has been less widespread than expected. Centralized monitoring is one of the RMB pillars, together with remote-site monitoring visits, reduced Source Data Verification (SDV) and Source Document Reviews (SDR). The COVID-19 pandemic promoted disruptions in the conduction of clinical trials, as on-site monitoring visits were adjourned. In this context, the transition to RBM by all actors involved in clinical trials has been encouraged. In order to ensure the highest quality of data within a COVID-19 clinical trial, a centralized monitoring tool alongside Case Report Forms (CRFs) and synchronous automated routines were developed at the clinical research platform, Fiocruz, Brazilian Ministry of Health. This paper describes how these tools were developed, their features, advantages, and limitations. The software codes, and the CRFs are available at the Fiocruz Data Repository for Research—Arca Dados, reaffirming Fiocruz's commitment to Open Science practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Stroke survivors with aphasia want to improve their everyday talking (discourse). In current UK practice, 90% of speech and language therapists believe discourse assessment and treatment is part of their role but are hampered by barriers in resources, time and expertise. There is a clinical need for well-articulated discourse assessment and treatments. LUNA is a multi-level treatment targeting words, sentences and discourse macrostructure in personal stories that addresses this clinical need. Objectives: This study aimed to assess the feasibility and acceptability of LUNA trial procedures in a randomised waitlist-controlled trial; and to evaluate preliminary efficacy. Methods: This paper reports a phase II, waitlist-controlled, proof-of-concept feasibility trial. Participants with chronic aphasia (n = 28) were recruited from the community and randomised to an Immediate (n = 14) or Delayed (n = 14) group. LUNA treatment was delivered twice weekly for 10 weeks via the videoconferencing technology, Zoom. Feasibility was assessed in terms of participant recruitment and retention, adherence, missing data, and treatment fidelity. Preliminary treatment efficacy was assessed in terms of between group differences in outcome measures relating to discourse, language, and psychosocial state. Results: The remote LUNA trial was feasible: 85% of those eligible consented to the trial; trial retention was 86%; 87% of treatment sessions were delivered as scheduled, and 79% of participants completed 80%+ of the treatment programme; data was missing only for participants who withdrew; treatment fidelity was high at 92% adherence; and only one clinical outcome measure demonstrated ceiling effects. ANCOVA analysis of the clinical outcome measures revealed group differences with medium and large effect sizes, indicating, improvements in the production of words, sentences, discourse macrostructure, overall language functioning (WAB-R), and psychosocial state (VAMS) following LUNA treatment. For most outcomes measured, similar treatment benefits were suggested in a secondary, non-parametric analysis. Conclusions: Large-scale evaluation of the clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of LUNA is warranted and supported by these findings. Trial registration: Clinical trials registration: NCT05847023 (clinical trials.gov). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Healthcare services regularly receive patient feedback, most of which is positive. Empirical studies suggest that health services can use positive feedback to create patient benefit. Our aim was to map all available empirical evidence for how positive patient feedback creates change in healthcare settings. Methods: Empirical studies in English were systematically identified through database searches (ACM Digital Library, AMED, ASSIA, CINAHL, MEDLINE and PsycINFO), forwards and backwards citation, and expert consultation. We summarise the characteristics of included studies and the feedback they consider, present a thematic synthesis of qualitative findings, and provide narrative summaries of quantitative findings. Results: 68 papers were included, describing research conducted across six continents, with qualitative (n = 51), quantitative (n = 10), and mixed (n = 7) methods. Only two studies were interventional. The most common settings were hospitals (n = 27) and community healthcare (n = 19). The most common recipients were nurses (n = 29). Most outcomes described were desirable. These were categorised as (a) short-term emotional change for healthcare workers (including feeling motivated and improved psychological wellbeing); (b) work-home interactional change for healthcare workers (such as improved home-life relationships); (c) work-related change for healthcare workers (such as improved performance and staff retention). Some undesirable outcomes were described, including envy when not receiving positive feedback. The impact of feedback may be moderated by characteristics of particular healthcare roles, such as night shift workers having less interaction time with patients. Some factors moderating the change created by feedback are modifiable. Conclusion: Further interventional research is required to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of receiving positive feedback in creating specific forms of change such as increases in staff retention. Healthcare managers may wish to use positive feedback more regularly, and to address barriers to staff receiving feedback. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A number of publishers and funders, including PLOS, have recently adopted policies requiring researchers to share the data underlying their results and publications. Such policies help increase the reproducibility of the published literature, as well as make a larger body of data available for reuse and re-analysis. In this study, we evaluate the extent to which authors have complied with this policy by analyzing Data Availability Statements from 47,593 papers published in PLOS ONE between March 2014 (when the policy went into effect) and May 2016. Our analysis shows that compliance with the policy has increased, with a significant decline over time in papers that did not include a Data Availability Statement. However, only about 20% of statements indicate that data are deposited in a repository, which the PLOS policy states is the preferred method. More commonly, authors state that their data are in the paper itself or in the supplemental information, though it is unclear whether these data meet the level of sharing required in the PLOS policy. These findings suggest that additional review of Data Availability Statements or more stringent policies may be needed to increase data sharing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Slow patient enrollment or failing to enroll the required number of patients is a disruptor of clinical trial timelines. To meet the planned trial recruitment, site selection strategies are used during clinical trial planning to identify research sites that are most likely to recruit a sufficiently high number of subjects within trial timelines. We developed a machine learning approach that outperforms baseline methods to rank research sites based on their expected recruitment in future studies. Indication level historical recruitment and real-world data are used in the machine learning approach to predict patient enrollment at site level. We define covariates based on published recruitment hypotheses and examine the effect of these covariates in predicting patient enrollment. We compare model performance of a linear and a non-linear machine learning model with common industry baselines that are constructed from historical recruitment data. Performance of the methodology is evaluated and reported for two disease indications, inflammatory bowel disease and multiple myeloma, both of which are actively being pursued in clinical development. We validate recruitment hypotheses by reviewing the covariates relationship with patient recruitment. For both indications, the non-linear model significantly outperforms the baselines and the linear model on the test set. In this paper, we present a machine learning approach to site selection that incorporates site-level recruitment and real-world patient data. The model ranks research sites by predicting the number of recruited patients and our results suggest that the model can improve site ranking compared to common industry baselines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There are challenges associated with recruiting children to take part in randomised clinical trials and as a result, compared to adults, in many disease areas we are less certain about which treatments are most safe and effective. This can lead to weaker recommendations about which treatments to prescribe in practice. However, it may be possible to 'borrow strength' from adult evidence to improve our understanding of which treatments work best in children, and many different statistical methods are available to conduct these analyses. In this paper we discuss four Bayesian methods for extrapolating adult clinical trial evidence to children. Using an exemplar dataset, we compare the effect of their modelling assumptions on the estimated treatment effect and associated heterogeneity. These modelling assumptions range from adult evidence being completely generalisable to being completely unrelated to the children's evidence. We finally discuss the appropriateness of these modelling assumptions in the context of estimating treatment effect in children. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The CONSORT extension for patient reported outcomes (PROs) aims to improve reporting, but guidance on the optimal integration with clinical data is lacking. This study examines in detail the reporting of PROs and clinical data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in gastro-intestinal cancer to inform design and reporting of combined PRO and clinical data from trials to improve the ‘take home’ message for clinicians to use in practice. Materials and Methods: The case study was undertaken in gastro-intestinal cancer trials. Well-conducted RCTs reporting PROs with validated instruments were identified and categorized into those combining PRO and clinical data in a single paper, or those separating data into linked primary and supplemental papers. Qualitative methods were developed to examine reporting of the critical interpretation of the trial results (trial exegesis) in the papers in relation of the PRO and clinical outcomes and applied to each publication category. Results were used to inform recommendations for practice. Results: From 1917 screened abstracts, 49 high quality RCTs were identified reported in 36 combined and 15 linked primary and supplemental papers. In-depth analysis of manuscript text identified three categories for understanding trial exegesis: where authors reported a “detailed”, “general”, or absent PRO rationale and integrated interpretation of clinical and PRO results. A total of 11 (30%) and 6 (16%) combined papers reported “detailed” PRO rationale and integrated interpretation of results although only 2 (14%) and 1 (7%) primary papers achieved the same standard respectively. Supplemental papers provide better information with 11 (73%) and 3 (20%) achieving “detailed” rationale and integrated interpretation of results. Supplemental papers, however, were published a median of 20 months after the primary RCT data in lower impact factor journals (median 16.8 versus 5.2). Conclusion: It is recommended that single papers, with detailed PRO rationale and integrated PRO and clinical data are published to optimize trial exegesis. Further work to examine whether this improves the use of PRO data to inform practice is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Over 1.3 billion people, or 16% of the world's population, live with some form of disability. Recent studies have reported that people with disabilities (PwD) might not be receiving state-of-the-art treatment for cancer as their non-disabled peers; our objective was to systematically review this topic. Methods: A systematic review was undertaken to compare cancer outcomes and quality of cancer care between adults with and without disabilities (NIHR Prospero register ID number: CRD42022281506). A search of the literature was performed in July 2022 across five databases: EMBASE, Medline, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and CINAHL databases. Peer-reviewed quantitative research articles, published in English from 2000 to 2022, with interventional or observational study designs, comparing cancer outcomes between a sample of adult patients with disabilities and a sample without disabilities were included. Studies focused on cancer screening and not treatment were excluded, as well as editorials, commentaries, opinion papers, reviews, case reports, case series under 10 patients and conference abstracts. Studies were evaluated by one reviewer for risk of bias based on a set of criteria according to the SIGN 50 guidelines. A narrative synthesis was conducted according to the Cochrane SWiM guidelines, with tables summarizing study characteristics and outcomes. This research received no external funding. Results: Thirty-one studies were included in the systematic review. Compared to people without disabilities, PwD had worse cancer outcomes, in terms of poorer survival and higher overall and cancer-specific mortality. There was also evidence that PwD received poorer quality cancer care, including lower access to state-of-the-art care or curative-intent therapies, treatment delays, undertreatment or excessively invasive treatment, worse access to in-hospital services, less specialist healthcare utilization, less access to pain medications and inadequate end-of-life quality of care. Discussion: Limitations of this work include the exclusion of qualitative research, no assessment of publication bias, selection performed by only one reviewer, results from high-income countries only, no meta-analysis and a high risk of bias in 15% of included studies. In spite of these limitations, our results show that PwD often experience severe disparities in cancer care with less guideline-consistent care and higher mortality than people without disabilities. These findings raise urgent questions about how to ensure equitable care for PwD; in order to prevent avoidable morbidity and mortality, cancer care programs need to be evaluated and urgently improved, with specific training of clinical staff, more disability inclusive research, better communication and shared decision-making with patients and elimination of physical, social and cultural barriers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With new pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) modalities for HIV prevention becoming available, understanding how adolescent girls and young women (AGYW) navigate through PrEP options is essential, including factors underlying their choice. Through 16 focus group discussions (FGDs) and 52 in-depth interviews (IDIs) from REACH, an open-label crossover study in which AGYW were allocated 1:1 (between 06 February 2019 and 18 March 2020) to receive oral PrEP for six months and the dapivirine ring for six months, in a randomized sequence, followed by a 6-month period where either product (or neither) could be chosen, we explored decision-making process and product choice, using a mixed inductive-deductive analytical approach. Key themes included the desire to remain HIV-negative and weighing product attributes through experiential learning. Product triability appeared important in informing product choice as individual circumstances changed or assuaging side effects with a given product. Approved biomedical prevention innovations may also benefit from hands-on experience to help with adoption and use during real-world implementation. Furthermore, support from trusted providers will remain critical as AGYW contemplate navigating through PrEP options and choice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Resveratrol is a natural compound found in red wine. It has demonstrated anti-inflammatory properties in preclinical models. We compared the effect of oral resveratrol in a new patented formulation to oral placebo for individuals with painful knee osteoarthritis. Methods and findings: ARTHROL was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, Phase 3 trial conducted in 3 tertiary care centers in France. We recruited adults who fulfilled the 1986 American College of Rheumatology criteria for knee osteoarthritis and reported a pain intensity score of at least 40 on an 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS) in 10-point increments (0, no pain, to 100, maximal pain). Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) by using a computer-generated randomization list with permuted blocks of variable size (2, 4, or 6) to receive oral resveratrol (40 mg [2 caplets] twice a day for 1 week, then 20 mg [1 caplet] twice a day; resveratrol group) or matched oral placebo (placebo group) for 6 months. The primary outcome was the mean change from baseline in knee pain on a self-administered 11-point pain NRS at 3 months. The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: (NCT02905799). Between October 20, 2017 and November 8, 2021, we assessed 649 individuals for eligibility, and from November 9, 2017, we recruited 142 (22%) participants (mean age 61.4 years [standard deviation (SD) 9.6] and 101 [71%] women); 71 (50%) were randomly assigned to the resveratrol group and 71 (50%) to the placebo group. At baseline, the mean knee pain score was 56.2/100 (SD 13.5). At 3 months, the mean reduction in knee pain was −15.7 (95% confidence interval (CI), −21.1 to −10.3) in the resveratrol group and −15.2 (95% CI, −20.5 to −9.8) in the placebo group (absolute difference −0.6 [95% CI, −8.0 to 6.9]; p = 0.88). Serious adverse events (not related to the interventions) occurred in 3 (4%) in the resveratrol group and 2 (3%) in the placebo group. Our study has limitations in that it was underpowered and the effect size, estimated to be 0.55, was optimistically estimated. Conclusions: In this study, we observed that compared with placebo, oral resveratrol did not reduce knee pain in people with painful knee osteoarthritis. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02905799. In a phase 3 trial, Christelle Nguyen and team compared the effect of oral resveratrol in a new patented formulation to oral placebo for individuals with painful knee osteoarthritis. Author summary: Why was this study done?: Resveratrol has demonstrated anti-inflammatory properties in preclinical models and analgesic effects in painful conditions. For individuals with knee osteoarthritis, evidence before the study suggested a reduction in pain and an improvement in function at 3 months after resveratrol supplementation as an add-on therapy with meloxicam as compared with placebo. The optimal formulation of oral resveratrol was not addressed. What did the researchers do and find?: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, Phase 3 trial using oral resveratrol in a new patented formulation (Patent No. WO/2010/007252). We recruited adults with knee osteoarthritis who reported a pain intensity score of at least 40 on an 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS) in 10-point increments (0, no pain, to 100, maximal pain). Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive oral resveratrol or matched oral placebo for 6 months. Oral resveratrol did not reduce knee pain at 3 months as compared with matched oral placebo in individuals with painful knee osteoarthritis. What do these findings mean?: These findings do not support the use of resveratrol supplementation for reducing knee pain in adults with painful knee osteoarthritis. The study has limitations in that it was underpowered and the effect size, estimated to be 0.55, was optimistically estimated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In order to make informed decisions about how best to support children and young people with disabilities, effective strategies that facilitate active and meaningful participation in school are required. Clinical factors, diagnosis or impairments somewhat helpful in determining what should be provided in interventions. However, clinical factors alone will not offer a clear view of how to support participation. It is helpful then to look at wider psychosocial and environmental factors. The aim of this review was to synthesise evidence of psychosocial and environmental factors associated with school participation of 4–12 year old children with disabilities to inform the development of participation-fostering interventions. Methods: A systematic search and synthesis using realist methods was conducted of published research. Papers had to include consideration of psychosocial and/or environment factors for school participation of children with disabilities. The review was completed in accordance with the Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards (RAMESES) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Papers were identified via Boolean search of the electronic databases MEDLINE, CINAHL, PhycINFO and ERIC (January 2006-October 2018). Appraisal focussed on contributions in terms of whether the articles are appropriate for the review (relevance) and research quality (rigour). Data were analyzed using content and thematic analysis methods using a realist framework. A narrative synthesis of results was reported. Results and implications: We identified 1828 papers in the initial search. Seventy two papers were included in the final synthesis. Synthesis of findings led to three overarching mechanisms representing psychosocial factors for children (1) identity (2) competence and (3) experience of mind and body. Environmental aspects (context) compromised five interrelated areas: (1) structures and organization, (2) peers, (3) adults, (4) space and (5) objects. Our synthesis provides insights on how professionals may organize efforts to improve children’s participation. Consideration of these findings will help to proactively deal with suboptimal participation outcomes. Development of theoretically determined assessments and interventions for management of school participation are now required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Quality circles or peer review groups, and similar structured small groups of 6–12 health care professionals meet regularly across Europe to reflect on and improve their standard practice. There is debate over their effectiveness in primary health care, especially over their potential to change practitioners’ behaviour. Despite their popularity, we could not identify broad surveys of the literature on quality circles in a primary care context. Our scoping review was intended to identify possible definitions of quality circles, their origins, and reported effectiveness in primary health care, and to identify gaps in our knowledge. We searched appropriate databases and included any relevant paper on quality circles published until December 2017. We then compared information we found in the articles to that we found in books and on websites. Our search returned 7824 citations, from which we identified 82 background papers and 58 papers about quality circles. We found that they originated in manufacturing industry and that many countries adopted them for primary health care to continuously improve medical education, professional development, and quality of care. Quality circles are not standardized and their techniques are complex. We identified 19 papers that described individual studies, one paper that summarized 3 studies, and 1 systematic review that suggested that quality circles can effectively change behaviour, though effect sizes varied, depending on topic and context. Studies also suggested participation may affirm self-esteem and increase professional confidence. Because reports of the effect of quality circles on behaviour are variable, we recommend theory-driven research approaches to analyse and improve the effectiveness of this complex intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) shape our clinical practice. Several studies report a mediocre replicability rate of the studied RCTs. Many researchers believe that the relatively low replication rate of RCTs is attributed to the high p value significance threshold. To solve this problem, some researchers proposed using a lower threshold, which is inevitably associated with a decrease in the study power. Methods: The results of 22 500 RCTs retrieved from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) were reinterpreted using 2 fixed p significance threshold (0.05 and 0.005), and a recently proposed flexible threshold that minimizes the weighted sum of errors in statistical inference. Results: With p < 0.05 criterion, 28.5% of RCTs were significant; p < 0.005, 14.2%; and p < flexible threshold, 9.9% (2/3 of significant RCTs based on p < 0.05 criterion, were found not significant). Lowering the p cut-off, although decreases the false-positive rate, is not generally associated with a lower weighted sum of errors; the false-negative rate increases (the study power decreases); important treatments may be left undiscovered. Accurate calculation of the optimal p value thresholds needs knowledge of the variance in each study arm, a posteriori. Conclusions: Lowering the p value threshold, as it is proposed by some researchers, is not reasonable as it might be associated with an increase in false-negative rate. Using a flexible p significance threshold approach, although results in a minimum error in statistical inference, might not be good enough too because only a rough estimation may be calculated a priori; the data necessary for the precise computation of the most appropriate p significance threshold are only available a posteriori. Frequentist statistical framework has an inherent conflict. Alternative methods, say Bayesian methods, although not perfect, would be more appropriate for the data analysis of RCTs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Home blood self-collection devices can enable remote monitoring, but their implementation requires validation. Our objectives were to explore (i) the impact of sampling sites and topical analgesia on capillary blood volume and pain perception and (ii) the safety, acceptability, and failure of capillary self-collection among adults and children using the Tasso-SST device. Methods: We conducted a two-phase study. The investigational phase consisted of two on-site cross-sectional studies in healthy adult participants (≥ 12 years) and children (1–17 years) with their accompanying parent. Adults received 4 capillary samplings, where puncture sites and topical analgesia were randomized in a factorial design, and a venipuncture; children (and one parent) had one capillary sampling. The two co-primary outcomes were blood volume and pain. The implementation phase was conducted in two multicentre trials in participants choosing remote visits; blood volume, collection failure, adverse events, and satisfaction were documented. Results: In the investigational phase, 90 participants and 9 children with 7 parents were enrolled; 15 adults and 2 preschoolers participated in the implementation phase. In the adult investigational study, the device collected a median (25%, 75%) of 450 (250, 550) μl of blood with no significant difference between the puncture site, topical analgesia, and its interaction. Using topical analgesia reduced pain perception by 0.61 (95% CI: 0.97, 0.24; P <0.01) points on the 11-point scale; the pain reduction varied by puncture site, with the lower back showing the most significant decrease. Overall, combining all studies and phases, the median volume collected was 425 (250, 500) μl, and the device failure rate was 4.4%; minor adverse effects were reported in 8.9% of the participants, all were willing to use the device again. Conclusion: Capillary blood self-collection, yielding slightly less than 500 μl, proves to be a safe and relatively painless method for adults and children, with high satisfaction and low failure rates. The puncture site and topical analgesia do not affect blood volume, but topical analgesia on the lower back could reduce pain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly assessed in clinical trials, and guidelines are available to inform the design and reporting of such trials. However, researchers involved in PRO data collection report that specific guidance on ‘in-trial’ activity (recruitment, data collection and data inputting) and the management of ‘concerning’ PRO data (i.e., data which raises concern for the well-being of the trial participant) appears to be lacking. The purpose of this review was to determine the extent and nature of published guidelines addressing these areas. Methods and Findings: Systematic review of 1,362 articles identified 18 eligible papers containing ‘in-trial’ guidelines. Two independent authors undertook a qualitative content analysis of the selected papers. Guidelines presented in each of the articles were coded according to an a priori defined coding frame, which demonstrated reliability (pooled Kappa 0.86–0.97), and validity (<2% residual category coding). The majority of guidelines present were concerned with ‘pre-trial’ activities (72%), for example, outcome measure selection and study design issues, or ‘post-trial’ activities (16%) such as data analysis, reporting and interpretation. ‘In-trial’ guidelines represented 9.2% of all guidance across the papers reviewed, with content primarily focused on compliance, quality control, proxy assessment and reporting of data collection. There were no guidelines surrounding the management of concerning PRO data. Conclusions: The findings highlight there are minimal in-trial guidelines in publication regarding PRO data collection and management in clinical trials. No guidance appears to exist for researchers involved with the handling of concerning PRO data. Guidelines are needed, which support researchers to manage all PRO data appropriately and which facilitate unbiased data collection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this paper is to introduce a research methodology for the assessment of the acceptability of a humanoid robot at home for children with cochlear implants (CI). The quality of audiology rehabilitation for cochlear implanted child administrated at the hospital with pluri-weekly sessions is a major prognostic factor in the outcome on communications abilities, but represents also a constraint for families related to the access to care that are more difficult. Further, home training with tools would balance the equitable distribution of care in the territory and promote the child's progress. The humanoid robot should allow an ecological approach to this complementary training. Before developing this approach, it is necessary to study the acceptability of the humanoid robot at home, both by cochlear implanted child and their families. Ten families were chosen to have a humanoid robot at home, to explore their acceptability of the humanoid robot Pepper. The study lasts for 1 month per participants (i.e. cochlear implemented children and parent). Participants were invited to use the robot at home as much as they want. The humanoid robot Pepper was able to communicate and proposed activities not related to rehabilitation. Once a week during the study, data were collected from participants (questionnaires and robot's logs) and the smooth running of the study was checked. Questionnaires are used to evaluate the acceptability of the robot by children and parents. User data from the robot's logs are used to quantify the time and the actual use of the robot over the period of the study. Results of the experimentation will be reported, once all 10 participants have completed their passation. The robot is anticipated to be used and accepted by children with cochlear implants and their families. Clinical trial registration: Clinical Trials ID: NCT04832373; https://clinicaltrials.gov/. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The number of children with mental health problems has more than doubled since the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the effect of long Covid on children's mental health is still debatable. Recognising long Covid as a risk factor for mental health problems in children will increase awareness and screening for mental health problems following COVID-19 infection, resulting in earlier intervention and lower morbidity. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the proportion of mental health problems post-COVID-19 infection in children and adolescents, and to compare them with the population with no previous COVID-19 infection. Methodology: A systematic search was done in seven databases using pre-defined search terms. Cross-sectional, cohort and interventional studies reporting the proportion of mental health problems among children with long COVID in the English language from 2019 to May 2022 were included. Selection of papers, extraction of data and quality assessment were done independently by two reviewers. Studies with satisfactory quality were included in meta-analysis using R and Revman software programmes. Results: The initial search retrieved 1848 studies. After screening, 13 studies were included in the quality assessments. Meta-analysis showed children who had previous COVID-19 infection had more than two times higher odds of having anxiety or depression, and 14% higher odds of having appetite problems, compared to children with no previous infection. The pooled prevalence of mental health problems among the population were as follows; anxiety: 9%(95% CI:1, 23), depression: 15%(95% CI:0.4, 47), concentration problems: 6%(95% CI: 3, 11), sleep problems: 9%(95% CI:5, 13), mood swings: 13% (95%CI:5, 23) and appetite loss: 5%(95% CI:1, 13). However, studies were heterogenous and lack data from low- and middle-income countries. Conclusion: Anxiety, depression and appetite problems were significantly increased among post-COVID-19 infected children, compared to those without a previous infection, which may be attributed to long COVID. The findings underscore the importance of screening and early intervention of children post-COVID-19 infection at one month and between three to four months. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper we calculate the variation of the estimated vaccine efficacy (VE) due to the time-dependent force of infection resulting from the difference between the moment the Clinical Trial (CT) begins and the peak in the outbreak intensity. Using a simple mathematical model we tested the hypothesis that the time difference between the moment the CT begins and the peak in the outbreak intensity determines substantially different values for VE. We exemplify the method with the case of the VE efficacy estimation for one of the vaccines against the new coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The incidence of stroke sequelae among patients is as high as 70%–80%. Flexor spasm is the most common stroke sequela, presenting a heavy burden to the patients and their families. This study will evaluate the results of randomized controlled trials to determine the efficacy and safety of hand manipulation acupuncture for the treatment of upper limb motor dysfunction after stroke. Methods: Eight databases, including China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Scientific Journal Database, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, Wanfang Database, and Web of Science, will be searched using English and Chinese search strategies. In addition, manual retrieval of research papers, conference papers, ongoing experiments, and internal reports, among others, will supplement electronic retrieval. All eligible studies published on or before January 15, 2021 will be selected. To enhance the effectiveness of the study, only clinical randomized controlled trials related to the use of manual acupuncture for the treatment of upper limb motor dysfunction after stroke will be included. Analysis: The Fugl-Meyer upper extremity assessment will be the primary outcome measure, whereas the Wolf Motor Function Test, Modified Ashworth Scale, arm movement survey test table, and upper extremity freehand muscle strength assessment scores will be the secondary outcomes. Side effects and adverse events will be included as safety evaluations. To ensure the quality of the systematic evaluation, study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment will be independently performed by two authors, and a third author will resolve any disagreement. Ethics and dissemination: This systematic review will evaluate the efficacy and safety of manual acupuncture for the treatment of upper limb motor dysfunction after stroke. Since all included data will be obtained from published articles, it does not require ethical approval and will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. INPLASY registration number: INPLASY202110071. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of a clinical trial is to compare placebo to one or more treatments. The within-subject design is known to be more efficient than the between-subject design. However, in some trials that implement a within-subject design it is not possible to evaluate the placebo and all treatments within each subject. The design then becomes an incomplete within-subject design. An important question is how many subjects should be allocated to each combination of placebo and treatments. This paper studies optimal allocations of subjects in trials with a placebo and two treatments under heterogenous costs and variances. Two optimality criteria that consider the placebo-treatment contrasts simultaneously are considered, and the design is derived under a budgetary constraint. More subjects are allocated to those combinations with higher variances and lower costs. The optimal allocation is compared to the uniform allocation, which allocates equal number of subjects to each placebo and treatment combination, and to the complete within-subject design, where placebo and all treatments are available in each subject. The methodology is illustrated on the basis of an example on consultation time in primary care. A Shiny app is available to facilitate use of the methodology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Chordoma is formed from embryonic residues or ectopic chordae and locally aggressive or malignant tumors. We visually analyzed the research tendency and hotspot of chordoma. Methods: The bibliometric analysis was conducted from the Web of Science Core Collection database over the past two decades. The term and strategies were as follows: "TS = (chordoma) OR TS = (chordoblastoma) OR TS = (chordocarcinoma) OR TS = (chordoepithelioma) OR TS = (chordosarcoma) OR TS = (notochordoma). AND Language: English. AND Reference Type: Article OR Review". A total of 2,118 references were retrieved and used to make a visual analysis by VOSviewer 1.6.15. Results: The chordoma was on a steady rise and chordoma but remained the focus of scholars and organizations over the last two decades. The Chinese institutions and scholars lacked cooperation with their counterparts in other countries. The citations of documents and co-citation analysis of cited references suggested that M.L. McMaster, B.P. Walcott, P. Bergh, and S. Stacchiotti were leading researchers in this field of chordoma and their papers had been widely accepted and inspired recent researches. Keywords associated with recent chemotherapy, PD-1-related immunotherapy, and SMARCB1/integrase interactor 1 (INI1) in chordoma were a shortage of research and there may be more research ideas in the future by scholars. The research of chordoma will continue to be the hotspot. Conclusions: Thus, explaining the molecular mechanism and potential role of transcriptional inhibition and immunologic responses to SMARCB1/INI1-negative poorly differentiated chordoma will be available for preclinical experiments and clinical trials and lead to new therapeutic opportunities for chordoma patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, we propose a partial randomized response technique to collect reliable sensitive data for estimation of population proportion in ranked set sampling (RSS) scheme using auxiliary information. The idea is to increase confidence and (or) co-operation of the respondents by providing them the option of both 'direct' and 'randomized' response for the inquired sensitive question. This option is quite logical because perception of sensitive (insensitive) inquiry can vary among respondents. The properties of the proposed method are discussed and compared with existing randomized response techniques. Cost analysis is also carried out to prove supremacy of the suggested method. Finally, an application to clinical trial on AIDS is included. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Qualitative studies nested within clinical trials can provide insight into the treatment experience, how this evolves over time and where improved supportive care is required. The purpose of this qualitative study is to describe the lived experiences of men with advanced prostate cancer participating in the TheraP trial; a randomised trial of 177Lu-PSMA-617 compared with cabazitaxel chemotherapy. Methods: Fifteen men with advanced prostate cancer were recruited from the TheraP clinical trial with interviews conducted at three timepoints during the trial. An interpretative phenomenological approach was used, and interviews analysed using thematic analysis. This research paper reports the results from the mid-point, conclusion and follow up interviews, focusing specifically on participants' experiences of trial participation. Results: Three themes were identified representing the lived experiences of men with advanced prostate cancer participating in the TheraP trial: (1) facing limited options; (2) anticipating outcomes and (3) coping with health changes. Conclusions: Men who enrol in clinical trial of anti-neoplastic treatments for prostate cancer need targeted psychological and supportive care that includes attention to unique aspects of the experience of having prostate cancer and being in a clinical trial. As part of their trial experience, men with advanced prostate cancer need to be regularly assessed for survivorship needs, fully informed, supported and referred to services for regular care and support across the trajectory of their disease. Trial registration: NCT03392428. Registered on 8 January 2018 (ANZUP1603). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Translational research is central to international health policy, research and funding initiatives. Despite increasing use of the term, the translation of basic science discoveries into clinical practice is not straightforward. This systematic search and narrative synthesis aimed to examine factors enabling or hindering translational research from the perspective of basic and clinician scientists, a key stakeholder group in translational research, and to draw policy-relevant implications for organisations seeking to optimise translational research opportunities. Methods and Results: We searched SCOPUS and Web of Science from inception until April 2015 for papers reporting scientists’ views of the factors they perceive as enabling or hindering the conduct of translational research. We screened 8,295 papers from electronic database searches and 20 papers from hand searches and citation tracking, identifying 26 studies of qualitative, quantitative or mixed method designs. We used a narrative synthesis approach and identified the following themes: 1) differing concepts of translational research 2) research processes as a barrier to translational research; 3) perceived cultural divide between research and clinical care; 4) interdisciplinary collaboration as enabling translation research, but dependent on the quality of prior and current social relationships; 5) translational research as entrepreneurial science. Across all five themes, factors enabling or hindering translational research were largely shaped by wider social, organisational, and structural factors. Conclusion: To optimise translational research, policy could consider refining translational research models to better reflect scientists’ experiences, fostering greater collaboration and buy in from all types of scientists. Organisations could foster cultural change, ensuring that organisational practices and systems keep pace with the change in knowledge production brought about by the translational research agenda. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Traditionally, clinical research studies rely on collecting data with case report forms, which are subsequently entered into a database to create electronic records. Although well established, this method is time-consuming and errorprone. This study compares four electronic data capture (EDC) methods with the conventional approach with respect to duration of data capture and accuracy. It was performed in a West African setting, where clinical trials involve data collection from urban, rural and often remote locations. Methodology/Principal Findings: Three types of commonly available EDC tools were assessed in face-to-face interviews; netbook, PDA, and tablet PC. EDC performance during telephone interviews via mobile phone was evaluated as a fourth method. The Graeco Latin square study design allowed comparison of all four methods to standard paper-based recording followed by data double entry while controlling simultaneously for possible confounding factors such as interview order, interviewer and interviewee. Over a study period of three weeks the error rates decreased considerably for all EDC methods. In the last week of the study the data accuracy for the netbook (5.1%, CI95%: 3.5-7.2%) and the tablet PC (5.2%, CI95%: 3.7- 7.4%) was not significantly different from the accuracy of the conventional paper-based method (3.6%, CI95%: 2.2-5.5%), but error rates for the PDA (7.9%, CI95%: 6.0-10.5%) and telephone (6.3%, CI95% 4.6-8.6%) remained significantly higher. While EDC-interviews take slightly longer, data become readily available after download, making EDC more time effective. Free text and date fields were associated with higher error rates than numerical, single select and skip fields. Conclusions: EDC solutions have the potential to produce similar data accuracy compared to paper-based methods. Given the considerable reduction in the time from data collection to database lock, EDC holds the promise to reduce researchassociated costs. However, the successful implementation of EDC requires adjustment of work processes and reallocation of resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Competitive pressure to maximize the current bibliometric measures of productivity is jeopardizing the integrity of the scientific literature. Efforts are underway to address the ‘reproducibility crisis’ by encouraging the use of more rigorous, confirmatory methods. However, as long as productivity continues to be defined by the number of discoveries scientists publish, the impact factor of the journals they publish in and the number of times their papers are cited, they will be reluctant to accept high quality methods and consistently conduct and publish confirmatory/replication studies. This exploratory study examined a sample of rigorous Phase II-IV clinical trials, including unpublished studies, to determine if more appropriate metrics and incentives can be developed. The results suggest that rigorous procedures will help reduce false positives, but to the extent that higher quality methods are accepted as the standard of practice, the current bibliometric incentives will discourage innovative studies and encourage scientists to shift their research to less informative studies of subjects that are already being more actively investigated. However, the results also suggest that it is possible to develop a more appropriate system of rewards. In contrast to the current bibliometric incentives, evaluations of the quality of the methods and reproducibility of the results, innovation and diversity of thought, and amount of information produced may serve as measures and incentives that maintain the integrity of the scientific literature and maximize scientific progress. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To explore and analyze research hotspots and frontiers in CRF in ovarian cancer patients to provide an evidence-based basis for scholars and policymakers. Background: Ovarian cancer is one of the most common and lethal gynecological malignancies. Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is an annoying and pervasive side-effect that seriously affects the activities of daily living and decreases the quality of life (QoL) of cancer survivors. Methods: The literature was retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection (WOSCC) from inception to 2021-12-31. CiteSpace was used to discuss research countries, institutions, authors, and keywords. Results: This study ultimately included 755 valid publications, and the number of publications showed a gradual upward trend. The countries, institutions, authors, and journals that have published the most articles and cited the most frequently were the United States, the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Michael Friedlander and Amit M Oza, Gynecologic Oncology, and Journal of Clinical Oncology. The top three high-frequency keywords were Ovarian cancer, chemotherapy, and clinical trial. The top three keywords with the strongest citation bursts were cyclophosphamide, double-blind, and open-label. Conclusions: Conducting multi-center, large-sample, randomized controlled clinical trials to determine whether chemotherapeutic agents have severe adverse effects and to discuss the relationship between CRF and QoL and overall survival in cancer survivors are hotspots in this field. The new trends may be applying double-blind, randomized controlled trials to clarify the causes of CRF and open-label, randomized trials to determine the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of chemotherapeutic agents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Paracetamol (N-acetyl-p-aminophenol (APAP), also known as acetaminophen) is used to relieve mild to moderate pain and reduce fever. APAP is widely used during pregnancy as it is considered safe when used as directed by regulatory authorities. However, a significant amount of epidemiological and experimental research suggests that prenatal exposure potentially alters fetal development. In this paper, we summarize the potentially harmful adverse effects of APAP and the limitations of the current evidence. It highlights the urgent need for a clinical trial, and the aim of the presented qualitative pilot study on APAP use during pregnancy is the feasibility of a large-scale randomized controlled trial (RCT). In the qualitative study, we included 232 Danish women from three hospitals in the spring of 2021. After recognizing the pregnancy, 48% had taken any APAP, and 6% had taken it weekly or more than weekly. A total of 27% who had taken APAP in the first trimester of pregnancy (even rarely) would potentially participate in an RCT. In a potential clinical trial, the women would need to be included early in the 1st trimester as the suspected harmful effects of APAP lies within this early reproductive developmental window. A possible recruitment strategy was explored. These data suggest that the target population appears positive towards an RCT. As a negative attitude among users has been considered the major hindrance for such a study, we cannot see hindrances for performing an RCT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Good quality medical research generally requires not only an expertise in the chosen medical field of interest but also a sound knowledge of statistical methodology. The number of medical research articles which have been published in Indian medical journals has increased quite substantially in the past decade. The aim of this study was to collate all evidence on study design quality and statistical analyses used in selected leading Indian medical journals. Ten (10) leading Indian medical journals were selected based on impact factors and all original research articles published in 2003 (N = 588) and 2013 (N = 774) were categorized and reviewed. A validated checklist on study design, statistical analyses, results presentation, and interpretation was used for review and evaluation of the articles. Main outcomes considered in the present study were – study design types and their frequencies, error/defects proportion in study design, statistical analyses, and implementation of CONSORT checklist in RCT (randomized clinical trials). From 2003 to 2013: The proportion of erroneous statistical analyses did not decrease (χ2=0.592, Φ=0.027, p=0.4418), 25% (80/320) in 2003 compared to 22.6% (111/490) in 2013. Compared with 2003, significant improvement was seen in 2013; the proportion of papers using statistical tests increased significantly (χ2=26.96, Φ=0.16, p<0.0001) from 42.5% (250/588) to 56.7 % (439/774). The overall proportion of errors in study design decreased significantly (χ2=16.783, Φ=0.12 p<0.0001), 41.3% (243/588) compared to 30.6% (237/774). In 2013, randomized clinical trials designs has remained very low (7.3%, 43/588) with majority showing some errors (41 papers, 95.3%). Majority of the published studies were retrospective in nature both in 2003 [79.1% (465/588)] and in 2013 [78.2% (605/774)]. Major decreases in error proportions were observed in both results presentation (χ2=24.477, Φ=0.17, p<0.0001), 82.2% (263/320) compared to 66.3% (325/490) and interpretation (χ2=25.616, Φ=0.173, p<0.0001), 32.5% (104/320) compared to 17.1% (84/490), though some serious ones were still present. Indian medical research seems to have made no major progress regarding using correct statistical analyses, but error/defects in study designs have decreased significantly. Randomized clinical trials are quite rarely published and have high proportion of methodological problems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The use of suboptimal controls in randomized trials of new cancer drugs can produce potentially unreliable clinical efficacy results over the current standard of care and expose patients to substandard therapy. We aim to investigate the proportion of randomized trials of investigational cancer drugs that used a suboptimal control arm and the number of trial participants at risk of exposure to suboptimal treatments in China. The association between the use of a suboptimal control and concluding statistical significance on the primary endpoint was also examined. Methods and findings: This observational study included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of cancer drugs that were authorized by specific Chinese institutional review boards between 2016 and 2021, supporting investigational new drug applications of these drugs in China. The proportion of trials that used a suboptimal control arm and the total number of trial participants at risk of exposure to suboptimal treatments were calculated. In a randomized trial for a specific condition, a comparator was deemed suboptimal if it was not recommended by clinical guidelines published in priori or if there existed a regimen with a higher level of recommendation for the indication. The final sample included 453 Phase II/III and Phase III randomized oncology trials. Overall, 60 trials (13.2%) adopted a suboptimal control arm. Among them, 58.3% (35/60) used comparators that were not recommended by a prior guideline for the indication. The cumulative number of trial participants at risk of exposure to suboptimal treatments totaled 18,610 by the end of 2021, contributing 15.1% to the total number of enrollees of all sampled RCTs in this study. After adjusting for the year of ethical approval, region of participant recruitment, line of therapy, and cancer site, second-line therapies (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.7, 95%CI [1.2, 5.9]), adjuvant therapies (aOR = 8.9, 95% CI [3.4, 23.1]), maintenance therapies (aOR = 5.2, 95% CI [1.6, 17.0]), and trials recruiting participants in China only (aOR = 4.1, 95% CI [2.1, 8.0]) were more likely to adopt a suboptimal control. For the 105 trials with publicly available results, no statistically significant difference was observed between the use of a suboptimal control and concluding positive on the primary endpoint (100.0% [12/12] versus 83.9% [78/93], p = 0.208). The main limitation of this study is its reliance on clinical guidelines that could vary across cancer types and time in assessing the quality of the control groups. Conclusions: In this study, over one-eighth of randomized trials of cancer drugs registered to apply for regulatory approval in China used a suboptimal comparator. Our results highlight the necessity to refine the design of randomized trials to generate optimal clinical evidence for new cancer therapies. In this observational study, Yichen Zhang and colleagues explore how comparator arms are used in randomized oncology trials registered in China. Author summary: Why was this study done?: ■ Using inappropriate controls in randomized trials of new cancer drugs can expose patients to harm and produce potentially unreliable results of clinical efficacy. ■ In November 2021, China's Center for Drug Evaluation issued the Guidance on Clinical Value-Oriented Oncology Drug Research and Development. It stated that an active control arm should be selected with consideration of whether it reflects the optimal treatment in current clinical practices. ■ Previous descriptive analysis showed that oncology trials are expanding in China; however, no literature evaluated the quality of their control arms. What did the researchers do and find?: ■ This observational study reports the annual trend and proportion of 453 Phase II/III and Phase III randomized oncology trials registered in China between 2016 and 2021 that adopted a suboptimal control arm. We also calculated the cumulative number of trial participants at risk of exposure to suboptimal treatments. ■ We observed a fluctuating yet overall upward trend in the number of trials and participants that used a suboptimal comparator during our observation period. Overall, 60 trials adopted a suboptimal control arm and the cumulative number of trial participants at risk of exposure to suboptimal treatments totaled 18,610 by the end of 2021. ■ Trials with a suboptimal control reported higher but statistically non-significant proportions of positive results than those using an optimal control. What do these findings mean?: ■ Trial sponsors, ethical review boards, and oncologists should make collaborative efforts to protect patients from unnecessary harm and drugs with uncertain clinical benefits over the existing standard of care. ■ Regulatory agencies should be cautious when reviewing investigational new drug applications whose supporting trial used a suboptimal control and when making subsequent market authorization decisions. ■ A limitation of this study is the reliance on clinical guidelines that could vary across cancer types and time in assessing the quality of the control groups. Hence, though oncologists and clinical pharmacists were consulted when assessing the sample trials, our results may have inherent subjectivity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Chronic carriage of S. Typhi or S. Paratyphi is an important source of enteric fever transmission. Existing guidance and treatment options for this condition are limited. This systematic review aims to assess the evidence concerning the efficacy of different antimicrobials in treating enteric fever chronic carriage. Methods: We searched major bibliographic databases using relevant keywords between 1946 and September 2021. We included all interventional studies that included patients with confirmed enteric fever chronic carriage and deployed an antimicrobial that remains in clinical practice today. Case reports and case series of under 10 patients were excluded. Two reviewers screened abstracts, selected articles for final inclusion and quality-assessed the included studies for risk of bias. Extracted data was analysed, with pooling of data and eradication rates for each antimicrobial calculated. As only one randomised controlled trial was identified, no meta-analysis was performed. Results: Of the 593 papers identified by the initial search, a total of eight studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the systematic review. Evidence was identified for the use of fluoroquinolones and amoxicillin/ampicillin in the treatment for enteric fever chronic carriage. Fluoroquinolones were superior to amoxicillin/ampicillin with 92% of patients achieving eradication after one antimicrobial course compared to 68% (p = 0.02). The quality of included studies was poor, and all were carried out before 1990. Conclusion: This review identified fluoroquinolones and amoxicillin/ampicillin as treatment options for enteric fever chronic carriage, with fluoroquinolones the more effective option. However, this evidence pre-dates rises in antimicrobial resistance in enteric fever and therefore the significance of these findings to today's practice is unclear. Further research is needed to investigate whether these antimicrobials remain appropriate treatment options or whether alternative interventions are more effective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Historical clinical trial registry data can only be retrieved by manually accessing individual clinical trials through registry websites. This limits the feasibility, accuracy and reproducibility of certain kinds of research on clinical trial activity and presents challenges to the transparency of the enterprise of human research. This paper presents cthist, a novel, free and open source R package that enables automated scraping of clinical trial registry entry histories and returns structured data for analysis. Documentation of the implementation of the package cthist is provided, as well as 3 brief case studies with example code. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Disorganised attachment patterns in infants have been linked to later psychopathology. Services have variable practices for identifying and providing interventions for families of children with disorganised attachment patterns, which is the attachment pattern leading to most future psychopathology. Several recent government reports have highlighted the need for better parenting interventions in at risk groups. Objectives: The objective of this review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of available parenting interventions for families of children at high risk of developing, or already showing, a disorganised pattern of attachment. Methods: Population: Studies were included if they involved parents or caregivers of young children with a mean age under 13 years who had a disorganised classification of attachment or were identified as at high risk of developing such problems. Included interventions were aimed at parents or caregivers (e.g. foster carers) seeking to improve attachment. Comparators included an alternative intervention, an attention control, treatment as usual or no intervention. The primary outcome was a disorganised pattern in childhood measured using a validated attachment instrument. Studies that did not use a true Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) design were excluded from the review. Both published and unpublished papers were included, there were no restrictions on years since publication and foreign language papers were included where translation services could be accessed within necessary timescales. Results: A comprehensive search of relevant databases yielded 15,298 papers. This paper reports a systematic review as part of an NIHR HTA study identifying studies pre-2012, updated to include all papers to October 2016. Two independent reviewers undertook two stage screening and data extraction of the included studies at all stages. A Cochrane quality assessment was carried out to assess the risk of bias. In total, fourteen studies were included in the review. In a meta-analysis of these fourteen studies the interventions saw less disorganised attachment at outcome compared to the control (OR = 0.50, (0.32, 0.77), p = 0.008). The majority of the interventions targeted maternal sensitivity. We carried out exploratory analyses to examine factors that may influence treatment outcome but these should be treated with caution given that we were limited by small numbers of studies. Conclusions: Parenting interventions that target parental sensitivity show promise in reducing disorganised attachment. This is limited by few high quality studies and the fact that most studies are with mothers. More high quality randomised controlled trials are required to elucidate this further. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Physical inactivity has been identified as a leading risk factor for premature mortality globally, and adolescents, in particular, have low physical activity levels. Schools have been identified as a setting to tackle physical inactivity. Economic evidence of school-based physical activity programmes is limited, and the costs of these programmes are not always collected in full. This paper describes a micro-costing and cost-consequence analysis of the ‘Girls Active’ secondary school-based programme as part of a cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT). Micro-costing and cost-consequence analyses were conducted using bespoke cost diaries and questionnaires to collect programme delivery information. Outcomes for the cost-consequence analysis included health-related quality of life measured by the Child Health Utility-9D (CHU-9D), primary care General Practitioner (GP) and school-based (school nurse and school counsellor) service use as part of a cluster RCT of the ‘Girls Active’ programme. Overall, 1,752 secondary pupils were recruited and a complete case sample of 997 participants (Intervention n = 570, Control n = 427) was used for the cost-consequence analysis. The micro-costing analysis demonstrated that, depending upon how the programme was delivered, ‘Girls Active’ costs ranged from £1,054 (£2 per pupil, per school year) to £3,489 (£7 per pupil, per school year). The least costly option was to absorb ‘Girls Active’ strictly within curriculum hours. The analysis demonstrated no effect for the programme for the three main outcomes of interest (health-related quality of life, physical activity and service use).Micro-costing analyses demonstrated the costs of delivering the ‘Girls Active’ programme, addressing a gap in the United Kingdom (UK) literature regarding economic evidence from school-based physical activity programmes. This paper provides recommendations for those gathering cost and service use data in school settings to supplement validated and objective measures, furthering economic research in this field. Trial registration: -ISRCTN, . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Data from clinical trials investigating on-demand medication often consist of an intentionally varying number of measurements per patient. These measurements are often observations of discrete events of when the medication was taken, including for example data on symptom severity. In addition to the varying number of observations between patients, the data have another important feature: they are characterized by a hierarchical structure in which the events are nested within patients. Traditionally, the observed events of patients are aggregated into means and subsequently analyzed using, for example, a repeated measures ANOVA. This procedure has drawbacks. One drawback is that these patient means have different standard errors, first, because the variance of the underlying events differs between patients and second, because the number of events per patient differs. In this paper, we argue that such data should be analyzed by applying a multilevel analysis using the individual observed events as separate nested observations. Such a multilevel approach handles this drawback and it also enables the examination of varying drug effects across patients by estimating random effects. We show how multilevel analyses can be applied to on-demand medication data from a clinical trial investigating the efficacy of a drug for women with low sexual desire. We also explore linear and quadratic time effects that can only be performed when the individual events are considered as separate observations and we discuss several important statistical topics relevant for multilevel modeling. Taken together, the use of a multilevel approach considering events as nested observations in these types of data is advocated as it is more valid and provides more information than other (traditional) methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scientific data recording and reporting systems are of a great interest for endorsing reproducibility and transparency practices among the scientific community. Current research generates large datasets that can no longer be documented using paper lab notebooks (PLNs). In this regard, electronic laboratory notebooks (ELNs) could be a promising solution to replace PLNs and promote scientific reproducibility and transparency. We previously analyzed five ELNs and performed two survey-based studies to implement an ELN in a biomedical research institute. Among the ELNs tested, we found that Microsoft OneNote presents numerous features related to ELN best functionalities. In addition, both surveyed groups preferred OneNote over a scientifically designed ELN (PerkinElmer Elements). However, OneNote remains a general note-taking application and has not been designed for scientific purposes. We therefore provide a quick guide to adapt OneNote to an ELN workflow that can also be adjusted to other nonscientific ELNs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Lower back pain is a major public health problem. Despite claims that lumbar belts change spinal posture due to applied pressure on the trunk, no mechanical model has yet been published to prove this treatment. This paper describes a first model for belt design, based on the one hand on the mechanical properties of the fabrics and the belt geometry, and on the other hand on the trunk geometrical and mechanical description. The model provides the estimation of the pressure applied to the trunk, and a unique indicator of the belt mechanical efficiency is proposed: pressure is integrated into a bending moment characterizing the belt delordosing action on the spine. A first in-silico clinical study of belt efficiency for 15 patients with 2 different belts was conducted. Results are very dependent on the body shape: in the case of high BMI patients, the belt effect is significantly decreased, and can be even inverted, increasing the lordosis. The belt stiffness proportionally increases the pressure applied to the trunk, but the influence of the design itself on the bending moment is clearly outlined. Moreover, the belt/trunk interaction, modeled as sticking contact and the specific way patients lock their belts, dramatically modifies the belt action. Finally, even if further developments and tests are still necessary, the model presented in this paper seems suitable for in-silico pre-clinical trials on real body shapes at a design stage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Previous research has shown that statin adherence for the primary prevention of CVD is lower compared to secondary prevention populations. Therefore the aim of this systematic review was to review predictors of statin adherence for the primary prevention of CVD. Methods: A systematic search of papers published between Jan 1984 and May 2017 was conducted in PubMed, PsycINFO, EMbase and CINAHL databases. A study was eligible for inclusion if; 1) it was a study of the general population or of patients with familial hypercholesterolemia, hypertension, diabetes or arthritis; 2) statins were prescribed; 3) adherence was defined and measured as the extent to which patients followed their statin regimen during the period of prescription, and 4) it was an original trial or observational study (excluding case reports). A study was subsequently excluded if 1) results were not presented separately for primary prevention; 2) it was a trial of an intervention (for example patient education). Papers were reviewed by two researchers and consensus agreed with a third. A quality assessment (QA) tool was used to formally assess each included article. To evaluate the effect of predictors, data were quantitatively and qualitatively synthesised. Results: In total 19 studies met the inclusion criteria and nine were evaluated as high quality using the QA tool. The proportion of patients classed as “adherent” ranged from 17.8% to 79.2%. Potential predictors of statin adherence included traditional risk factors for CVD such as age, being male, diabetes and hypertension. Income associated with adherence more strongly in men than women, and highly educated men were more likely and highly educated women less likely to be adherent. Alcohol misuse and high BMI associated with non-adherence. There was no association between polypharmacy and statin adherence. The evidence base for the effect of other lifestyle factors and health beliefs on statin adherence was limited. Conclusion: Current evidence suggests that patients with more traditional risk factors for CVD are more likely to be adherent to statins. The implications for future research are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The use of functional assessments to evaluate patient change is complicated by a lack of consensus as to which assessment is most suitable for use with older adults. Objective: To identify and appraise the properties of assessments used to evaluate functional abilities in older adults. Methods: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials of occupational therapy interventions was conducted up to 2012 to identify assessments used to measure function. Two authors screened and extracted data independently. A second search then identified papers investigating measurement properties of each assessment. Studies from the second search were included if: i) published in English, ii) the assessment was not modified from its original published form, iii) study aim was to evaluate the quality of the tool, iv) and was original research. Translated versions of assessments were excluded. Measurement quality was rated using the COSMIN checklist and Terwee criteria. Results: Twenty-eight assessments were identified from the systematic search of occupational therapy interventions provided to older adults. Assessments were of varied measurement quality and many had been adapted (although still evaluated as though the original tool had been administered) potentially altering the conclusions drawn about measurement quality. Synthesis of best evidence established 15 functional assessments have not been tested in an older adult population. Conclusions: The Functional Autonomy Measurement System (SMAF) appears to be a promising assessment for use with older adults. Only two tools (the SMAF and the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills (AMPS)) were deemed to be responsive to change when applied to older adults. Health professionals should use functional assessments that have been validated with their population and in their setting. There are reliable and valid assessments to capture the functional performance of older adults in community and hospital settings, although further refinement of these assessments may be necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Clinical trial registries allow assessment of deviations of published trials from their protocol, which may indicate a considerable risk of bias. However, since entries in many registries can be updated at any time, deviations may go unnoticed. We aimed to assess the frequency of changes to primary outcomes in different historical versions of registry entries, and how often they would go unnoticed if only deviations between published trial reports and the most recent registry entry are assessed. Methods and findings: We analyzed the complete history of changes of registry entries in all 1746 randomized controlled trials completed at German university medical centers between 2009 and 2017, with published results up to 2022, that were registered in ClinicalTrials.gov or the German WHO primary registry (German Clinical Trials Register; DRKS). Data were retrieved on 24 January 2022. We assessed deviations between registry entries and publications in a random subsample of 292 trials. We determined changes of primary outcomes (1) between different versions of registry entries at key trial milestones, (2) between the latest registry entry version and the results publication, and (3) changes that occurred after trial start with no change between latest registry entry version and publication (so that assessing the full history of changes is required for detection of changes). We categorized changes as major if primary outcomes were added, dropped, changed to secondary outcomes, or secondary outcomes were turned into primary outcomes. We also assessed (4) the proportion of publications transparently reporting changes and (5) characteristics associated with changes. Of all 1746 trials, 23% (n = 393) had a primary outcome change between trial start and latest registry entry version, with 8% (n = 142) being major changes, that is, primary outcomes were added, dropped, changed to secondary outcomes, or secondary outcomes were turned into primary outcomes. Primary outcomes in publications were different from the latest registry entry version in 41% of trials (120 of the 292 sampled trials; 95% confidence interval (CI) [35%, 47%]), with major changes in 18% (54 of 292; 95% CI [14%, 23%]). Overall, 55% of trials (161 of 292; 95% CI [49%, 61%]) had primary outcome changes at any timepoint over the course of a trial, with 23% of trials (67 of 292; 95% CI [18%, 28%]) having major changes. Changes only within registry records, with no apparent discrepancy between latest registry entry version and publication, were observed in 14% of trials (41 of 292; 95% CI [10%, 19%]), with 4% (13 of 292; 95% CI [2%, 7%]) being major changes. One percent of trials with a change reported this in their publication (2 of 161 trials; 95% CI [0%, 4%]). An exploratory logistic regression analysis indicated that trials were less likely to have a discrepant registry entry if they were registered more recently (odds ratio (OR) 0.74; 95% CI [0.69, 0.80]; p<0.001), were not registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (OR 0.41; 95% CI [0.23, 0.70]; p = 0.002), or were not industry-sponsored (OR 0.29; 95% CI [0.21, 0.41]; p<0.001). Key limitations include some degree of subjectivity in the categorization of outcome changes and inclusion of a single geographic region. Conclusions: In this study, we observed that changes to primary outcomes occur in 55% of trials, with 23% trials having major changes. They are rarely transparently reported in the results publication and often not visible in the latest registry entry version. More transparency is needed, supported by deeper analysis of registry entries to make these changes more easily recognizable. Protocol registration: Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/t3qva; amendment in https://osf.io/qtd2b). In this meta-research study, Martin Holst and colleagues investigate changes to prespecified primary outcomes in the historic registries of clinical trials. Author summary: Why was this study done?: Clinical trial registries are a key tool to increase the trustworthiness of clinical trials. They allow assessment of how closely a published trial follows its original plan. However, registry entries can be updated at any time, which creates a trail of historical versions. If the latest registry entry version matches with the published trial report, important preceding changes might thus be unapparent to assessors at first glance. Our objective was to investigate how often primary outcomes are changed in the trial registry over the course of a trial, and how often outcome changes are unapparent if one compares only the latest registry entry version to the publication. What did the researchers do and find?: We assessed all 1746 randomized controlled trials completed at German university medical centers between 2009 and 2017, that have a results publication. We determined the frequency of outcome changes between different versions of a registry entry, as well as the latest registry entry and the results publication. We defined adding or dropping primary outcomes, changing them to secondary outcomes, or turning secondary outcomes into primary outcomes, as major changes. We found that approximately 55% of trials had primary outcome changes at any timepoint over the course of a trial; 23% of trials had major changes. We observed changes that can be easily identified by comparing the published results to the latest registry entry in 41% of trials. In 14% of trials, however, the changes would require an in-depth look within the historical versions of that trial's registry entry. Only 1% of trials with changes (2 trials) reported this in the corresponding publications. What do these findings mean?: Our analysis suggests that changes to primary outcomes of a clinical trial are common, are often major, and have a potential to go unnoticed. More transparency is needed, supported by deeper analysis of registry entries to reveal these outcome changes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]