Search

Introduction: Ensuring that the health data infrastructure and governance permits an efficient secondary use of data for research is a policy priority for many countries. Switzerland is no exception and many initiatives have been launched to improve its health data landscape. The country now stands at an important crossroad, debating the right way forward. We aimed to explore which specific elements of data governance can facilitate - from ethico-legal and socio-cultural perspectives - the sharing and reuse of data for research purposes in Switzerland., Methods: A modified Delphi methodology was used to collect and structure input from a panel of experts via successive rounds of mediated interaction on the topic of health data governance in Switzerland., Results: First, we suggested techniques to facilitate data sharing practices, especially when data are shared between researchers or from healthcare institutions to researchers. Second, we identified ways to improve the interaction between data protection law and the reuse of data for research, and the ways of implementing informed consent in this context. Third, we put forth ideas on policy changes, such as the steps necessary to improve coordination between different actors of the data landscape and to win the defensive and risk-adverse attitudes widespread when it comes to health data., Conclusions: After having engaged with these topics, we highlighted the importance of focusing on non-technical aspects to improve the data-readiness of a country (e.g., attitudes of stakeholders involved) and of having a pro-active debate between the different institutional actors, ethico-legal experts and society at large., (© The Author(s) 2023.)

Background: Most randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the academic setting have limited resources for clinical trial management and monitoring. Inefficient conduct of trials was identified as an important source of waste even in well-designed studies. Thoroughly identifying trial-specific risks to enable focussing of monitoring and management efforts on these critical areas during trial conduct may allow for the timely initiation of corrective action and to improve the efficiency of trial conduct. We developed a risk-tailored approach with an initial risk assessment of an individual trial that informs the compilation of monitoring and management procedures in a trial dashboard., Methods: We performed a literature review to identify risk indicators and trial monitoring approaches followed by a contextual analysis involving local, national and international stakeholders. Based on this work we developed a risk-tailored management approach with integrated monitoring for RCTs and including a visualizing trial dashboard. We piloted the approach and refined it in an iterative process based on feedback from stakeholders and performed formal user testing with investigators and staff of two clinical trials., Results: The developed risk assessment comprises four domains (patient safety and rights, overall trial management, intervention management, trial data). An accompanying manual provides rationales and detailed instructions for the risk assessment. We programmed two trial dashboards tailored to one medical and one surgical RCT to manage identified trial risks based on daily exports of accumulating trial data. We made the code for a generic dashboard available on GitHub that can be adapted to individual trials., Conclusions: The presented trial management approach with integrated monitoring enables user-friendly, continuous checking of critical elements of trial conduct to support trial teams in the academic setting. Further work is needed in order to show effectiveness of the dashboard in terms of safe trial conduct and successful completion of clinical trials., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Objective: The registration of clinical trials is required by law in Switzerland. We investigated (1) the proportion of registered and prospectively registered clinical trials, (2) the availability of results for ethically approved trial protocols, (3) factors associated with increased registration, and (4) reasons for non-registration., Design and Setting: We included all clinical trials with mandatory prospective registration, which were approved by the ethics committee of Northwestern and Central Switzerland between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2020., Methods: We extracted relevant trial characteristics from the Swiss Business Administration System for Ethics Committees and systematically searched the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and primary trial registries for corresponding registry entries. We used multivariable logistic regression to examine the association between trial characteristics and registration. We qualitatively assessed reasons for non-registration of trials through an email questionnaire for trial investigators., Results: Of 473 included clinical trials, 432 (91%) were registered at all and 326 (69%) were prospectively registered. While the percentages of registration and prospective registration of investigator-sponsored trials increased from 85 to 93% and from 59 to 70% over 5 years, respectively, industry-sponsored trials consistently remained at a high level of prospective registration (92 to 100%). Trials with multiple centres, higher risk category, or methodological support from the local clinical trials unit were independently associated with increased registration rates. Of 103 clinical trials completed before August 2020, results were available for 70% of industry-sponsored trials and 45% of investigator-sponsored trials as peer-reviewed journal publications or in trial registries. Most common reasons for non-registration provided by investigators were lack of time or resources (53%), lack of knowledge (22%), and lack of reminders by the ethics committee (36%)., Conclusions: In Northwestern and Central Switzerland about 10% of clinical trials remained unregistered despite the obligation by law. More support for investigators and stricter enforcement by regulators are needed to improve the transparency of investigator-sponsored trials in particular., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Objectives: Comprehensive protocols are key for the planning and conduct of randomised clinical trials (RCTs). Evidence of low reporting quality of RCT protocols led to the publication of the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) checklist in 2013. We aimed to examine the quality of reporting of RCT protocols from three countries before and after the publication of the SPIRIT checklist., Design: Repeated cross sectional study., Setting: Swiss, German and Canadian research ethics committees (RECs)., Participants: RCT protocols approved by RECs in 2012 (n=257) and 2016 (n=292)., Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures: The primary outcomes were the proportion of reported SPIRIT items per protocol and the proportion of trial protocols reporting individual SPIRIT items. We compared these outcomes in protocols approved in 2012 and 2016, and built regression models to explore factors associated with adherence to SPIRIT. For each protocol, we also extracted information on general trial characteristics and assessed whether individual SPIRIT items were reported RESULTS: The median proportion of reported SPIRIT items among RCT protocols showed a non-significant increase from 72% (IQR, 63%-79%) in 2012 to 77% (IQR, 68%-82%) in 2016. However, in a preplanned subgroup analysis, we detected a significant improvement in investigator-sponsored protocols: the median proportion increased from 64% (IQR, 55%-72%) in 2012 to 76% (IQR, 64%-83%) in 2016, while for industry-sponsored protocols median adherence was 77% (IQR 72%-80%) for both years. The following trial characteristics were independently associated with lower adherence to SPIRIT: single-centre trial, no support from a clinical trials unit or contract research organisation, and investigator-sponsorship., Conclusions: In 2012, industry-sponsored RCT protocols were reported more comprehensively than investigator-sponsored protocols. After publication of the SPIRIT checklist, investigator-sponsored protocols improved to the level of industry-sponsored protocols, which did not improve., Competing Interests: Competing interests: BvN is currently employed by Roche Pharma AG, Grenzach-Wyhlen, Germany. BK is currently employed by iOMEDICO AG, Freiburg, Germany. All other authors declare no financial relationships with any organisation that might have an interest in the submitted work and no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: We previously found that 25% of 1,017 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) approved between 2000 and 2003 were discontinued prematurely, and 44% remained unpublished at a median of 12 years follow-up. We aimed to assess a decade later (1) whether rates of completion and publication have increased; (2) the extent to which nonpublished RCTs can be identified in trial registries; and (3) the association between reporting quality of protocols and premature discontinuation or nonpublication of RCTs., Methods and Findings: We included 326 RCT protocols approved in 2012 by research ethics committees in Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Canada in this metaresearch study. Pilot, feasibility, and phase 1 studies were excluded. We extracted trial characteristics from each study protocol and systematically searched for corresponding trial registration (if not reported in the protocol) and full text publications until February 2022. For trial registrations, we searched the (i) World Health Organization: International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (ICTRP); (ii) US National Library of Medicine (ClinicalTrials.gov); (iii) European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials Database (EUCTR); (iv) ISRCTN registry; and (v) Google. For full text publications, we searched PubMed, Google Scholar, and Scopus. We recorded whether RCTs were registered, discontinued (including reason for discontinuation), and published. The reporting quality of RCT protocols was assessed with the 33-item SPIRIT checklist. We used multivariable logistic regression to examine the association between the independent variables protocol reporting quality, planned sample size, type of control (placebo versus other), reporting of any recruitment projection, single-center versus multicenter trials, and industry versus investigator sponsoring, with the 2 dependent variables: (1) publication of RCT results; and (2) trial discontinuation due to poor recruitment. Of the 326 included trials, 19 (6%) were unregistered. Ninety-eight trials (30%) were discontinued prematurely, most often due to poor recruitment (37%; 36/98). One in 5 trials (21%; 70/326) remained unpublished at 10 years follow-up, and 21% of unpublished trials (15/70) were unregistered. Twenty-three of 147 investigator-sponsored trials (16%) reported their results in a trial registry in contrast to 150 of 179 industry-sponsored trials (84%). The median proportion of reported SPIRIT items in included RCT protocols was 69% (interquartile range 61% to 77%). We found no variables associated with trial discontinuation; however, lower reporting quality of trial protocols was associated with nonpublication (odds ratio, 0.71 for each 10% increment in the proportion of SPIRIT items met; 95% confidence interval, 0.55 to 0.92; p = 0.009). Study limitations include that the moderate sample size may have limited the ability of our regression models to identify significant associations., Conclusions: We have observed that rates of premature trial discontinuation have not changed in the past decade. Nonpublication of RCTs has declined but remains common; 21% of unpublished trials could not be identified in registries. Only 16% of investigator-sponsored trials reported results in a trial registry. Higher reporting quality of RCT protocols was associated with publication of results. Further efforts from all stakeholders are needed to improve efficiency and transparency of clinical research., Competing Interests: I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: DG contributed to the ASPIRE project as part of his PhD thesis before his current employment with Idorsia Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (his current employer had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript). BvN contributed to the ASPIRE project as part of her PhD thesis before her current employment with Roche (her current employer had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript). All authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Background: Trial monitoring is an important component of good clinical practice to ensure the safety and rights of study participants, confidentiality of personal information, and quality of data. However, the effectiveness of various existing monitoring approaches is unclear. Information to guide the choice of monitoring methods in clinical intervention studies may help trialists, support units, and monitors to effectively adjust their approaches to current knowledge and evidence., Objectives: To evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of different monitoring strategies (including risk-based strategies and others) for clinical intervention studies examined in prospective comparative studies of monitoring interventions., Search Methods: We systematically searched CENTRAL, PubMed, and Embase via Ovid for relevant published literature up to March 2021. We searched the online 'Studies within A Trial' (SWAT) repository, grey literature, and trial registries for ongoing or unpublished studies., Selection Criteria: We included randomized or non-randomized prospective, empirical evaluation studies of different monitoring strategies in one or more clinical intervention studies. We applied no restrictions for language or date of publication., Data Collection and Analysis: We extracted data on the evaluated monitoring methods, countries involved, study population, study setting, randomization method, and numbers and proportions in each intervention group. Our primary outcome was critical and major monitoring findings in prospective intervention studies. Monitoring findings were classified according to different error domains (e.g. major eligibility violations) and the primary outcome measure was a composite of these domains. Secondary outcomes were individual error domains, participant recruitment and follow-up, and resource use. If we identified more than one study for a comparison and outcome definitions were similar across identified studies, we quantitatively summarized effects in a meta-analysis using a random-effects model. Otherwise, we qualitatively summarized the results of eligible studies stratified by different comparisons of monitoring strategies. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence for different groups of comparisons., Main Results: We identified eight eligible studies, which we grouped into five comparisons. 1. Risk-based versus extensive on-site monitoring: based on two large studies, we found moderate certainty of evidence for the combined primary outcome of major or critical findings that risk-based monitoring is not inferior to extensive on-site monitoring. Although the risk ratio was close to 'no difference' (1.03 with a 95% confidence interval [CI] of 0.81 to 1.33, below 1.0 in favor of the risk-based strategy), the high imprecision in one study and the small number of eligible studies resulted in a wide CI of the summary estimate. Low certainty of evidence suggested that monitoring strategies with extensive on-site monitoring were associated with considerably higher resource use and costs (up to a factor of 3.4). Data on recruitment or retention of trial participants were not available. 2. Central monitoring with triggered on-site visits versus regular on-site visits: combining the results of two eligible studies yielded low certainty of evidence with a risk ratio of 1.83 (95% CI 0.51 to 6.55) in favor of triggered monitoring intervention. Data on recruitment, retention, and resource use were not available. 3. Central statistical monitoring and local monitoring performed by site staff with annual on-site visits versus central statistical monitoring and local monitoring only: based on one study, there was moderate certainty of evidence that a small number of major and critical findings were missed with the central monitoring approach without on-site visits: 3.8% of participants in the group without on-site visits and 6.4% in the group with on-site visits had a major or critical monitoring finding (odds ratio 1.7, 95% CI 1.1 to 2.7; P = 0.03). The absolute number of monitoring findings was very low, probably because defined major and critical findings were very study specific and central monitoring was present in both intervention groups. Very low certainty of evidence did not suggest a relevant effect on participant retention, and very low certainty evidence indicated an extra cost for on-site visits of USD 2,035,392. There were no data on recruitment. 4. Traditional 100% source data verification (SDV) versus targeted or remote SDV: the two studies assessing targeted and remote SDV reported findings only related to source documents. Compared to the final database obtained using the full SDV monitoring process, only a small proportion of remaining errors on overall data were identified using the targeted SDV process in the MONITORING study (absolute difference 1.47%, 95% CI 1.41% to 1.53%). Targeted SDV was effective in the verification of source documents, but increased the workload on data management. The other included study was a pilot study, which compared traditional on-site SDV versus remote SDV and found little difference in monitoring findings and the ability to locate data values despite marked differences in remote access in two clinical trial networks. There were no data on recruitment or retention. 5. Systematic on-site initiation visit versus on-site initiation visit upon request: very low certainty of evidence suggested no difference in retention and recruitment between the two approaches. There were no data on critical and major findings or on resource use., Authors' Conclusions: The evidence base is limited in terms of quantity and quality. Ideally, for each of the five identified comparisons, more prospective, comparative monitoring studies nested in clinical trials and measuring effects on all outcomes specified in this review are necessary to draw more reliable conclusions. However, the results suggesting risk-based, targeted, and mainly central monitoring as an efficient strategy are promising. The development of reliable triggers for on-site visits is ongoing; different triggers might be used in different settings. More evidence on risk indicators that identify sites with problems or the prognostic value of triggers is needed to further optimize central monitoring strategies. In particular, approaches with an initial assessment of trial-specific risks that need to be closely monitored centrally during trial conduct with triggered on-site visits should be evaluated in future research., (Copyright © 2021 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Objectives: To investigate the adherence of randomised controlled trial (RCT) protocols evaluating non-regulated interventions (including dietary interventions, surgical procedures, behavioural and lifestyle interventions, and exercise programmes) in comparison with regulated interventions to the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) 2013 Statement., Methods: We conducted a repeated cross-sectional investigation in a random sample of RCT protocols approved in 2012 (n = 257) or 2016 (n = 292) by research ethics committees in Switzerland, Germany, or Canada. We investigated the proportion of accurately reported SPIRIT checklist items in protocols of trials with non-regulated as compared to regulated interventions., Results: Overall, 131 (24%) of trial protocols tested non-regulated interventions. In 2012, the median proportion of SPIRIT items reported in these protocols (59%, interquartile range [IQR], 53%-69%) was lower than in protocols with regulated interventions (median, 74%, IQR, 66%-80%). In 2016, the reporting quality of protocols with non-regulated interventions (median, 75%, IQR, 62%-83%) improved to the level of regulated intervention protocols, which had not changed on average., Conclusions: Reporting of RCT protocols evaluating non-regulated interventions improved between 2012 and 2016, although remained suboptimal. SPIRIT recommendations need to be further endorsed by researchers, ethics committees, funding agencies, and journals to optimize reporting of RCT protocols., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Clearly structured and comprehensive protocols are an essential component to ensure safety of participants, data validity, successful conduct, and credibility of results of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Funding agencies, research ethics committees (RECs), regulatory agencies, medical journals, systematic reviewers, and other stakeholders rely on protocols to appraise the conduct and reporting of RCTs. In response to evidence of poor protocol quality, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guideline was published in 2013 to improve the accuracy and completeness of clinical trial protocols. The impact of these recommendations on protocol completeness and associations between protocol completeness and successful RCT conduct and publication remain uncertain., Objectives and Methods: Aims of the Adherence to SPIrit REcommendations (ASPIRE) study are to investigate adherence to SPIRIT checklist items of RCT protocols approved by RECs in the UK, Switzerland, Germany, and Canada before (2012) and after (2016) the publication of the SPIRIT guidelines; determine protocol features associated with non-adherence to SPIRIT checklist items; and assess potential differences in adherence across countries. We assembled an international cohort of RCTs based on 450 protocols approved in 2012 and 402 protocols approved in 2016 by RECs in Switzerland, the UK, Germany, and Canada. We will extract data on RCT characteristics and adherence to SPIRIT for all included protocols. We will use multivariable regression models to investigate temporal changes in SPIRIT adherence, differences across countries, and associations between SPIRIT adherence of protocols with RCT registration, completion, and publication of results. We plan substudies to examine the registration, premature discontinuation, and non-publication of RCTs; the use of patient-reported outcomes in RCT protocols; SPIRIT adherence of RCT protocols with non-regulated interventions; the planning of RCT subgroup analyses; and the use of routinely collected data for RCTs., Discussion: The ASPIRE study and associated substudies will provide important information on the impact of measures to improve the reporting of RCT protocols and on multiple aspects of RCT design, trial registration, premature discontinuation, and non-publication of RCTs observing potential changes over time.

Background : Never before have clinical trials drawn as much public attention as those testing interventions for COVID-19. We aimed to describe the worldwide COVID-19 clinical research response and its evolution over the first 100 days of the pandemic. Methods: Descriptive analysis of planned, ongoing or completed trials by April 9, 2020 testing any intervention to treat or prevent COVID-19, systematically identified in trial registries, preprint servers, and literature databases. A survey was conducted of all trials to assess their recruitment status up to July 6, 2020. Results: Most of the 689 trials (overall target sample size 396,366) were small (median sample size 120; interquartile range [IQR] 60-300) but randomized (75.8%; n=522) and were often conducted in China (51.1%; n=352) or the USA (11%; n=76). 525 trials (76.2%) planned to include 155,571 hospitalized patients, and 25 (3.6%) planned to include 96,821 health-care workers. Treatments were evaluated in 607 trials (88.1%), frequently antivirals (n=144) or antimalarials (n=112); 78 trials (11.3%) focused on prevention, including 14 vaccine trials. No trial investigated social distancing. Interventions tested in 11 trials with >5,000 participants were also tested in 169 smaller trials (median sample size 273; IQR 90-700). Hydroxychloroquine alone was investigated in 110 trials. While 414 trials (60.0%) expected completion in 2020, only 35 trials (4.1%; 3,071 participants) were completed by July 6. Of 112 trials with detailed recruitment information, 55 had recruited <20% of the targeted sample; 27 between 20-50%; and 30 over 50% (median 14.8% [IQR 2.0-62.0%]). Conclusions: The size and speed of the COVID-19 clinical trials agenda is unprecedented. However, most trials were small investigating a small fraction of treatment options. The feasibility of this research agenda is questionable, and many trials may end in futility, wasting research resources. Much better coordination is needed to respond to global health threats., Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed., (Copyright: © 2020 Janiaud P et al.)

Background: According to the Swiss Law on Research in Humans, the reuse of routinely collected genetic and non-genetic data and samples from patients for research purposes requires the consent of patients. Unfortunately, the so far established paper-based processes are intrinsically linked to the hospital admission process, labour intensive and not yielding the targeted return rates. Therefore, the overall goal of the presented SPHN project is to increase patient reach by providing hospitals with a patient-centric, user-friendly and admission-independent electronic general consent pathway. As part of the project, feasibility of different digital pathways was evaluated in a usability testing., Methods: Based on a nationwide harmonised template, a mobile centric progressive web application was developed by the Department of Clinical Research Basel. Usability of the application and according user journeys were evaluated at all partner hospitals. Two options of giving consent were explored using 1) patients' smartphones without any involvement of hospital personnel and 2) a hospital device (tablet) with explicit confirmation of patient identity by hospital personnel. Participant signatures were captured as a picture of a handwritten signature on paper taken with the camera of the smartphone or tablet. Usability issues and feedback of participants were documented directly after usability testing., Results: In total, 122 users agreed to participate in the usability testing using a tablet or smartphone. The general consent request workflow on the smartphone or tablet was regarded as user friendly and easy to navigate by 96% of all participants. However, capturing a picture of a handwritten signature resulted in usability issues in multiple cases, i.e. due to missing pen or paper., Conclusion: Usability testing of our prototype application showed a broad acceptance of participants regarding the use of mobile electronic devices to give general consent. Therefore, we believe that easy-to-use digital general consent processes provide effective means to increase the patient pool for health-related research. Further discussions with legislative bodies are required to find patient centric, feasible and legally acceptable solutions in the specific case of electronic general consent for the near future.

As accessing, collecting, and storing personal information become increasingly easier, the secondary use of data has the potential to make healthcare research more cost and time effective. The widespread reuse of data, however, raises important ethical and policy issues, especially because of the sensitive nature of genetic and health-related information. Regulation is thus crucial to determine the conditions upon which data can be reused. In this respect, the question emerges whether it is appropriate to endorse genetic exceptionalism and grant genetic data an exceptional status with respect to secondary use requirements. Using Swiss law as a case study, it is argued that genetic exceptionalism in secondary use regulation is not justified for three reasons. First, although genetic data have particular features, also other non-genetic data can be extremely sensitive. Second, having different regulatory requirements depending on the nature of data hinders the creation of comprehensible consent forms. Third, empirical evidence about public preferences concerning data reuse suggests that exceptional protection for genetic data alone is not justified. In this sense, it is claimed that regulation concerning data reuse should treat genetic data as important, but not exceptional., (Copyright © 2019 Martani, Geneviève, Pauli-Magnus, McLennan and Elger.)

Background: The preparation of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) requires substantial resources and the administrative processes can be burdensome. To facilitate the conduct of RCTs it is important to better understand cost drivers. In January 2014 the enactment of the new Swiss Legislation on Human Research (LHR) considerably changed the regulatory framework in Switzerland. We assess if the new LHR was associated with change in (i) resource use and costs to prepare an RCT, and (ii) approval times with research ethics committees (RECs) and the regulatory authority Swissmedic., Methods: We surveyed investigators of RCTs which were approved by RECs in 2012 or in 2016 and asked for RCT preparation costs using a pre-specified item list. Additionally, we collected approval times from RECs and Swissmedic., Results: The response rates of the investigator survey were 8.3% (19/228) for 2012 and 16.5% (47/285) in 2016. The median preparation cost of an RCT was USD 72,400 (interquartile range [IQR]: USD 59,500-87,700; n = 18) in 2012 and USD 72,600 (IQR: USD 42,800-169,600; n = 35) in 2016. For single centre RCTs a median REC approval time of 82 (IQR: 49-107; n = 38) days in 2012 and 92 (IQR: 65-131; n = 63) days in 2016 was observed. The median Swissmedic approval time for any clinical trial was 27 (IQR: 19-51; n = 213) days in 2012 and 49 (IQR: 36-67; n = 179) days in 2016. The total duration for achieving RCT approval from both authorities (REC and Swissmedic) in the parallel submission procedure applied in 2016 could not be assessed., Conclusion: Based on limited data the costs to plan and prepare RCTs in Switzerland were approximately USD 72,000 in 2012 and 2016. For effective and valid research on costs and approval times of RCTs a greater willingness to share cost information among investigators and more collaboration between stakeholders with data linkage is necessary., Competing Interests: All authors have declared that no competing interests exist. The funder of this study (Swiss Federal Office of Public Health) has implemented the new law on research with human beings (Human Research Act, HRA) and its ordinances (Swiss Legislation on Human Research, LHR) which is evaluated within this study. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Background: Biomedical research has recently moved through three stages in digital healthcare: (1) data collection; (2) data sharing; and (3) data analytics. With the explosion of stored health data (HD), dental medicine is edging into its fourth stage of digitization using artificial intelligence (AI). This narrative literature review outlines the challenge of managing HD and anticipating the potential of AI in oral healthcare and dental research by summarizing the current literature., Summary: The basis of successful management of HD is the establishment of a generally accepted data standard that will guide its implementation within electronic health records (EHR) and health information technology ecosystems (HIT Eco). Thereby continuously adapted (self-) learning health systems (LHS) can be created. The HIT Eco of the future will combine (i) the front-end utilization of HD in clinical decision-making by providers using supportive diagnostic tools for patient-centered treatment planning, and (ii) back-end algorithms analyzing the standardized collected data to inform population-based policy decisions about resource allocations and research directions. Cryptographic methods in blockchain enable a safe, more efficient, and effective dental care within a global perspective. Key Message: The interoperability of HD with accessible digital health technologies is the key to deliver value-based dental care and exploit the tremendous potential of AI., (© 2019 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Population-based linkage of patient-level information opens new strategies for dental research to identify unknown correlations of diseases, prognostic factors, novel treatment concepts and evaluate healthcare systems. As clinical trials have become more complex and inefficient, register-based controlled (clinical) trials (RC(C)T) are a promising approach in dental research. RC(C)Ts provide comprehensive information on hard-to-reach populations, allow observations with minimal loss to follow-up, but require large sample sizes with generating high level of external validity. Collecting data is only valuable if this is done systematically according to harmonized and inter-linkable standards involving a universally accepted general patient consent. Secure data anonymization is crucial, but potential re-identification of individuals poses several challenges. Population-based linkage of big data is a game changer for epidemiological surveys in Public Health and will play a predominant role in future dental research by influencing healthcare services, research, education, biotechnology, insurance, social policy and governmental affairs.

Background: Compelling evidence has demonstrated that a large proportion of investment in biomedical research is wasted; this waste is avoidable. Academic institutions have, thus far, shown limited response to recommendations for increasing value and reducing waste. We formulated an academic response by (i) achieving consensus across a wide range of stakeholder groups on a comprehensive framework for quality of patient-oriented clinical research and (ii) highlighting first successful examples of its operationalization to facilitate waste-reducing strategies at academic institutions., Methods and Findings: Based on a systematic review of quality definitions, concepts, and criteria in the medical literature (systematic MEDLINE search up to February 15, 2015, with independent and in duplicate article selection) and on stakeholder websites from 13 countries (Australia, Austria, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and United States), we systematically developed a comprehensive framework for the quality of clinical research. We identified websites through personal contacts with experts in clinical research or public health who also suggested, for each country, websites of the following 7 stakeholder groups: patient organizations; academic research infrastructures; governmental bodies; regulatory agencies; ethics committees; the pharmaceutical industry; and funding agencies. In addition, we searched websites of inter- or supranational bodies involved in clinical research until no further insights emerged. After consolidation of the identified definitions, concepts, and criteria of quality in a basic framework structure, we conducted 4 rounds of an adapted online Delphi process among the same 7 stakeholder groups from 16 countries. The Delphi process ultimately achieved consensus on structure and content. The framework addresses 5 study stages (concept, planning and feasibility, conduct, analysis and interpretation, and reporting and knowledge translation) and includes the following dimensions: (i) protection of patient safety and rights, (ii) relevance/patient centeredness and involvement, (iii) minimization of bias (internal validity), (iv) precision, (v) transparency/access to data, and (vi) generalizability (external validity) of study results. These dimensions interact with 2 promoters-infrastructure and sustainability through education-that include a set of factors that may enhance all listed quality dimensions. Each quality dimension contains specific questions and explanatory items that guide quality assessment at each research stage from conceptualization of the research question through reporting and knowledge translation of study results. In the last survey round, Delphi participants from 9 countries (Austria, Australia, Canada, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Switzerland, UK, and US) agreed on the structure, content, and wording of the research stages, quality dimensions, specific questions, and descriptive examples of the final framework. In Switzerland, INQUIRE has resulted in a roadmap that guides initiatives to increase value within the Swiss Clinical Trial Organization network and through affiliated researchers., Conclusions: We present a framework based on a consensus of different stakeholder groups guiding the practical assessment of clinical research quality at all stages of a research project. Operationalization of this common structure will support the increase of value by guiding academic institutions and researchers in developing quality enhancement initiatives, from posing the right research question to the transparent publication of results., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

A prominent 2014 series by The Lancet on "Increasing value, reducing waste in biomedical research" provided recommendations on how to optimise precious resources, including in clinical research. Despite being ideally placed to lead the movement in patient-oriented clinical research, academia struggles to take corresponding measures and find ways to evaluate their impact. A decade ago, Swiss stakeholders established constructive initiatives to improve the quality of clinical research, including a national Clinical Trial Unit (CTU) Network, predominantly rooted in university hospitals. At the 10th anniversary of this network (2007-2017), we reflect on the CTUs' trajectory and review whether - and how - they have been successful in improving the value of clinical research conducted in Switzerland. Anonymised surveys with involved clinical research stakeholder institutions and CTU customers at university hospitals suggest that the CTU Network has positively influenced the quality of academic clinical research. Future goals should include standardised education on Good Clinical Practice; the establishing of an audit function; the positioning of the network as an "entrance gate" for international trials; and support for young scientists launching their careers. Although stakeholder feedback has been very positive, praise does not constitute a standardised measure of the actual impact of CTU services. Beyond that, a broad understanding and practical guidance on how to increase value in academic clinical research are still lacking. We conclude with ways forward, including "INcreasing QUality In clinical Research" (INQUIRE), a comprehensive framework for the practical assessment of quality in academia developed by the CTU Basel. INQUIRE, founded on consensus across international and Swiss stakeholders, outlines six key quality dimensions to be fulfilled study-wide and is available for all relevant parties involved. INQUIRE encourages academic institutions to adopt waste-reducing strategies and strives to build an evidence-based clinical research landscape in Switzerland, with national and international influence.

Objectives: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are costly and published information on resource requirements for their conduct is limited. To identify key factors for making RCTs more sustainable, empirical data on resource use and associated costs are needed. We aimed to retrospectively assess resource use and detailed costs of two academic, investigator-initiated RCTs using a comprehensive list of cost items., Study Design and Setting: The resource use of two investigator-initiated RCTs (Prednisone-Trial [NCT00973154] and Oxantel-Trial [ISRCTN54577342]) was empirically assessed in a standardized manner through semistructured interviews and a systematically developed cost item list. Using information about yearly salaries, resource use was translated into costs. In addition, we collected all "other costs" including fixed priced items. Overall costs as well as cost of different study phases were calculated., Results: The personnel time used in the Prednisone-Trial trial was approximately 2,897 working days and the overall costs were calculated to be USD 2.3 million, which was USD 700,000 more than planned. In the Oxantel-Trial 798 working days were spent and the overall costs were as originally planned USD 100,000. Cost drivers were similar between the two RCTs with recruitment delays explaining the additional costs in the Prednisone-Trial., Conclusion: This case study provides an example of how to transparently assess resources and costs of RCTs and presents detailed empirical data on type and magnitude of expenses. In the future, this model approach may serve others to plan, assess, or monitor resource use and costs of RCTs., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are costly. We aimed to provide a systematic overview of the available evidence on resource use and costs for RCTs to support budget planning., Study Design and Setting: We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and HealthSTAR from inception until November 30, 2016 without language restrictions. We included any publication reporting empirical data on resource use and costs of RCTs and categorized them depending on whether they reported (i) resource and costs of all aspects at all study stages of an RCT (including conception, planning, preparation, conduct, and all tasks after the last patient has completed the RCT); (ii) on several aspects, (iii) on a single aspect (e.g., recruitment); or (iv) on overall costs for RCTs. Median costs of different recruitment strategies were calculated. Other results (e.g., overall costs) were listed descriptively. All cost data were converted into USD 2017., Results: A total of 56 articles that reported on cost or resource use of RCTs were included. None of the articles provided empirical resource use and cost data for all aspects of an entire RCT. Eight articles presented resource use and cost data on several aspects (e.g., aggregated cost data of different drug development phases, site-specific costs, selected cost components). Thirty-five articles assessed costs of one specific aspect of an RCT (i.e., 30 on recruitment; five others). The median costs per recruited patient were USD 409 (range: USD 41-6,990). Overall costs of an RCT, as provided in 16 articles, ranged from USD 43-103,254 per patient, and USD 0.2-611.5 Mio per RCT but the methodology of gathering these overall estimates remained unclear in 12 out of 16 articles (75%)., Conclusion: The usefulness of the available empirical evidence on resource use and costs of RCTs is limited. Transparent and comprehensive resource use and cost data are urgently needed to support budget planning for RCTs and help improve sustainability., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Clinical studies in children are necessary yet conducting multiple visits at study centers remains challenging. The success of "care-at-home" initiatives and remote clinical trials suggests their potential to facilitate conduct of pediatric studies. This pilot aimed to study the feasibility of remotely collecting valid (i.e. complete and correct) saliva samples and clinical data utilizing mobile technology., Methods: Single-center, prospective pilot study in children undergoing elective tonsillectomy at the University of Basel Children's Hospital. Data on pain scores and concomitant medication and saliva samples were collected by caregivers on two to four inpatient study days and on three consecutive study days at home. A tailored mobile application developed for this study supported data collection. The primary endpoint was the proportion of complete and correct caregiver-collected data (pain scale) and saliva samples in the at-home setting. Secondary endpoints included the proportion of complete and correct saliva samples in the inpatient setting, subjective feasibility for caregivers, and study cost., Results: A total number of 23 children were included in the study of which 17 children, median age 6.0 years (IQR 5.0, 7.4), completed the study. During the at-home phase, 71.9% [CI = 64.4, 78.6] of all caregiver-collected pain assessments and 53.9% [CI = 44.2, 63.4] of all saliva samples were complete and correct. Overall, 64.7% [CI = 58.7, 70.4] of all data collected by caregivers at home was complete and correct. The predominant reason for incorrectness of data was adherence to the timing of predefined patient actions. Participating caregivers reported high levels of satisfaction and willingness to participate in similar trials in the future. Study costs for a potential sample size of 100 patients were calculated to be 20% lower for the at-home than for a traditional in-patient study setting., Conclusions: Mobile device supported studies conducted at home may provide a cost-effective approach to facilitate conduct of clinical studies in children. Given findings in this pilot study, data collection at home may focus on electronic data capture rather than biological sampling.

Objective: To systematically survey existing definitions, concepts, and criteria of clinical research quality, both developed by stakeholder groups as well as in the medical literature. This study serves as a first step in the development of a comprehensive framework for the quality of clinical research., Study Design and Setting: We systematically and in duplicate searched definitions, concepts and criteria of clinical research quality on websites of stakeholders in clinical research until no further insights emerged and in MEDLINE up to February 2015. Stakeholders included governmental bodies, regulatory agencies, the pharmaceutical industry, academic and commercial contract research organizations, initiatives, research ethics committees, patient organizations and funding agencies from 13 countries. Data synthesis involved descriptive and qualitative analyses following the Framework Method on definitions, concepts, and criteria of clinical research quality. Descriptive codes were applied and grouped into clusters to identify common and stakeholder-specific quality themes., Results: Stakeholder concepts on how to assure quality throughout study conduct or articles on quality assessment tools were common, generally with no a priori definition of the term quality itself. We identified a total of 20 explicit definitions of clinical research quality including varying quality dimensions and focusing on different stages in the clinical research process. Encountered quality dimensions include ethical conduct, patient safety/rights/priorities, internal validity, precision of results, generalizability or external validity, scientific and societal relevance, transparency and accessibility of information, research infrastructure and sustainability. None of the definitions appeared to be comprehensive either in terms of quality dimensions, research stages, or stakeholder perspectives., Conclusion: Clinical research quality is often discussed but rarely defined. A framework defining clinical research quality across stakeholders' individual perspectives is desirable to facilitate discussion, assessment, and improvement of quality at all stages of clinical research.

Background: In spite of efforts to employ risk-based strategies to increase monitoring efficiency in the academic setting, empirical evidence on their effectiveness remains sparse. This mixed-methods study aimed to evaluate the risk-based on-site monitoring approach currently followed at our academic institution., Methods: We selected all studies monitored by the Clinical Trial Unit (CTU) according to Risk ADApted MONitoring (ADAMON) at the University Hospital Basel, Switzerland, between 01.01.2012 and 31.12.2014. We extracted study characteristics and monitoring information from the CTU Enterprise Resource Management system and from monitoring reports of all selected studies. We summarized the data descriptively. Additionally, we conducted semi-structured interviews with the three current CTU monitors., Results: During the observation period, a total of 214 monitoring visits were conducted in 43 studies resulting in 2961 documented monitoring findings. Our risk-based approach predominantly identified administrative (46.2%) and patient right findings (49.1%). We identified observational study design, high ADAMON risk category, industry sponsorship, the presence of an electronic database, experienced site staff, and inclusion of vulnerable study population to be factors associated with lower numbers of findings. The monitors understand the positive aspects of a risk-based approach but fear missing systematic errors due to the low frequency of visits., Conclusions: We show that the factors mostly increasing the risk for on-site monitoring findings are underrepresented in the current risk analysis scheme. Our risk-based on-site approach should further be complemented by centralized data checks, allowing monitors to transform their role towards partners for overall trial quality, and success.