Search

Strategies to bring clinical trials closer to patients gained momentum during the COVID-19 pandemic, enabling more participants to receive treatment and/or testing in their local communities. Incorporation of decentralized trial elements presents both opportunities and challenges, spanning regulatory, technical, and operational aspects. This ASCO research statement includes timely consensus-driven recommendations and a call for engagement of all research stakeholders. ASCO held multistakeholder meetings with leaders in oncology research and concluded that research-related regulatory and administrative requirements and burdens present critical barriers to decentralizing trials. One example is sponsor and contract research organization (CRO) use of US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s Statement of Investigator (Form 1572), which was found to exceed FDA's stated intent and used in conservative ways disproportionate to potential risks to participants and scientific integrity. As a result, research sites experience an avalanche of downstream administrative and regulatory activities that consume considerable resources. This statement recommends four key solutions to address such barriers and recalibrate regulatory and administrative expectations for decentralizing trials: (1) FDA should engage the research community in a public-private partnership to modernize standards and enable local access to trials; (2) sponsors and CROs should develop standards and protocols that accommodate flexible approaches, enable local participation, provide clarity around roles and requirements, and promote consistency; (3) research centers, networks, and sites should update policies and procedures to implement decentralized trial elements; and (4) research community should develop a streamlined, uniform mechanism to simplify regulatory data collection and documentation and use it consistently across trials. We can and must prioritize a concerted commitment to simplify and streamline regulatory requirements and practices to broaden access to and participation in cancer clinical trials.

Background: Monitoring is a crucial part of trial conduct and ensures that participants' data is fairly represented, and future healthcare information is enhanced. This project aims to improve trial monitoring by creating a trial monitoring plan (TMP) template with input from individuals experienced in monitoring clinical trials., Methods: A review of monitoring plans received from UK Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC) registered clinical trials units (CTU)s created the basis for a preliminary TMP template and a Delphi survey. The TMP template was finalised after 2 rounds of a Delphi survey and a two-part consensus meeting including trialists with experience and expertise in monitoring clinical trials., Results: We received 31 monitoring plans from UKCRC-registered CTUs and reviewed over 800 monitoring items for inclusion in a TMP template, selecting items based on guidelines such as Good Clinical Practice (GCP) and our monitoring experiences. For certain items, further expert input was required. A total of 66 items were chosen for a Delphi survey involving 47 participants from 25 UK CTUs and industry. After the first round, all 66 items were retained, and six additional items were suggested by Delphi participants. In the second round, 37 items reached consensus for inclusion in the TMP template. The Delphi process was followed by a consensus meeting with 9 participants from 9 UK CTUs and industry. Participants in the consensus meeting voted on the 32 further items that had not reached the definition of consensus within the Delphi, regarding each item's inclusion in or exclusion from the TMP template. The voting resulted in 18 items being excluded, leaving 14 items to be included in the TMP template. The process overall resulted in a standardised TMP template with input from many individuals with interest, experience, or expertise in monitoring clinical trials., Conclusion: A TMP template was developed building on the currently used monitoring plans and with input from those experienced in clinical trial monitoring. Using a centrally developed good quality TMP template should contribute towards maintaining consistency in monitoring standards across all CTUs, resulting in higher research quality and improved quality assurance. Its use should provide reassurance to participants that their participation is carefully monitored to ensure that their data or any samples provided are treated with confidentiality, integrity, and respect and that their rights and well-being are protected., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Findings from clinical trials have led to advancement of care for patients with gynecologic malignancies. However, restrictive inclusion of patients into trials has been widely criticized for inadequate representation of the real-world population. Ideally, patients enrolled in clinical trials should represent a broader population to enhance external validity and facilitate translation of outcomes across all relevant groups. Specifically, there has been a systematic lack of data for underrepresented groups, with many studies failing to report or differentiate study participants based on sociodemographic domains, such as race and ethnicity. As such, the impact of treatment in these underrepresented groups is poorly understood, and clinical outcomes according to various sociodemographic factors are infrequently assessed. Inclusion of diverse trial participants, with different racial and ethnic background, is essential for the understanding of factors that may impact clinical outcomes. Therefore, we conducted a multi-national meeting of clinical trial groups and industry with the goal of increasing equity, diversity, and inclusion in gynecologic cancer clinical trials and to address barriers to recruitment, participation, and harmonization of data collection and reporting. These Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup (GCIG) statements present recommendations and strategies for the gynecologic cancer research community to improve equity, diversity, and inclusion in gynecologic cancer clinical trials., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Alison Brand reports grants/contracts from the Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care Medical Research Future Fund, Australia and New Zealand Gynaecological Oncology Group (ANZGOG); and is Director ANZGOG, Chair GCIG. Michael Bookman reports consultancy fees paid to the institution from Immunogen independent DSMB. Sabrina Chiara Cecere reports travel support from AstraZeneca, Clovis, GSK, MSD; honoraria from AstraZeneca, Clovis, GSK, MSD; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board from AstraZeneca, Clovis, GSK, MSD. Paul A. Cohen reports grants/contracts from the Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care Medical Research Future Fund, Cancer Council Western Australia, Australia and New Zealand Gynaecological Oncology Group (ANZGOG); honoraria and educational events from AstraZeneca, MSD; advisory boards with AstraZeneca, Reliis; non-remunerated leadership roles as Director ANZGOG, Chair Research Advisory Committee ANZGOG, Education Committee Chair, International Gynecological Cancer Society, Expert Advisory Group Australian Centre for Prevention of Cervical Cancer, Editorial Board Member International Journal Gynecological Cancer; stock in Reliis Ltd. Jennifer Croke reports honoraria from American Society of Radiation Oncology (Member, Sexual and Gender Minority Affinity Working Group), Canadian Association of Radiation Oncology (Annual Scientific Meeting lead), Merck. Josie Ethier reports consultancy fees from AstraZeneca; honoraria from AstraZeneca, GSK, Merck; advisory board participation with AstraZeneca, Eisai, GSK, Merck. Franziska Geissler reports grants/contracts from International Research Fellowship, Swiss Cancer Research Foundation & Swiss Cancer League and Research Fund for Excellent Junior Researchers University of Basel 2024. Rosalind Glasspool reports grants/contracts from Clovis Oncology; consultancy fees from Clovis Oncology, GSK, Novartis; honoraria from GSK; travel support from GSK, MSD; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board from IDMC Matao trial; leadership or fiduciary roles at IGCS Advocacy committee chair, IGCS board member, Chair of Scottish Gynaecological Cancer Trials Group; receipt of equipment, materials, drugs, medical writing, gifts or other services from AstraZeneca, GSK, Novartis; other financial or non-financial interests with Allarity Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Immunogen, GSK. Philipp Harter reports grants/contracts from AstraZeneca, Clovis, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, Novartis, Roche, Seagen; consultancy fees from Miltenyi; honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Exscientia, GSK, Immunogen, Karyopharm, Mersana, MSD, Roche, Sotio, Stryker, Zai Lab; travel support from AstraZeneca; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board at AstraZeneca, Clovis, Eisai, GSK, Immunogen, MSD, Miltenyi, Novartis, Roche. Chee Khoon Lee reports grants/contracts from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Merck, Roche; honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Merck, Merck kGA, Novartis, Roche, Takeda. Kristina Lindemann reports grants/contracts from GSK (research funding paid to institution); honoraria, consultancy fees, or advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, Eisai, GSK, MSD, Nycode; part of the Data Safety Monitoring Committee for Karyopharm.Ainhoa Madariaga reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, Clovis, GSK, MSD, Pharma & PharmaMar; travel support from AstraZeneca, GSK, MSD; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, GSK, MSD. Asima Mukhopadhyay reports grants/contracts from the Indian Council of Medical Research for the IPIRIC academic study which endorses the principles of EDIM; honoraria from KGOG; advisory board at CannariaBio; Secretary KolGoTrg, Executive Board Member GCIG; part funding support for the IPIROC trial for drug procurement from BDR Pharma. Amit Oza reports grants/contracts from Amgen, AstraZeneca; consultancy fees from BMS; advisory board participation with AstraZeneca and GSK; other financial or non-financial interests with AstraZeneca, GSK. Elisa Piovano reports travel support from AstraZeneca, GSK. Bhavana Pothuri reports grants/contracts from Agenus, Alkermes, AstraZeneca, Acrivon, Celgene, Celsion/Immunon, Clovis Oncology, Duality Bio, Eisai, Immunogen, Incyte, Imab, InxMed, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Lily, LOXO/Lily, Merck, Mersana, Novocure, Onconova, NRG Oncology, Roche/Genentech, Seagen, Sutro, Takeda, Tesaro/GSK, Toray, VBL Therapeutics, Xencor; consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, Celsion, Duality Bio, Eisai, GOG Foundation, Imvax Inc, Incyte Corporation, InxMed, Lily, Onconova Therapeutics, Regeneron, SeaGen, Signatera, Sutro Biopharma, Tesaro/GSK; honoraria from Albert Einstein-Montefiore, Bioascend, Colorado University, Curio, Lankenau Hospital, OncLive, PERS, PeerView, Vanium, Yale University; travel support from GOG Partners; advisory boards with AstraZeneca, Celsion/Immunon, GOG Foundation, Imab, Imvax, Incyte, InxMed, Lily, Merck, Mersana, Nuvation, Sutro, Tesaro/GSK; leadership or fiduciary roles in GOG Partners, NYOB Society VP, SGO Board of Directors, SGO Clinical Practice Committee Chair, SGO COVID-19 Taskforce co-chair. Jose Alejandro Rauh-Hain reports grants/contracts from NIH, Department of Defense, American Cancer Society; support for the present manuscript from Guidepoint Consulting, Sago. Ora Rosengarten reports consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, Medison, MSD, Neopharm; travel support from AstraZeneca, MSD; lecture honoraria from AstraZeneca. Jalid Sehouli reports grants/contracts from AstraZeneca, Eisai, GSK, Merck, MSD, Novocure, Roche, Tesaro; consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, Clovis, Eisai, GSK, Immunogen, Incyte, MSD, Novocure; honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Clovis, Eisai, GSK, Immunogen, Incyte, MSD, Novartis, Novocure; travel support from AstraZeneca, Eisai, GSK, Immunogen, Incyte, MSD, Novocure, Roche; advisory boards with AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Clovis, GSK, Immunogen, Incyte, MSD, Novocure, PharmaMar; leadership or fiduciary roles at AGO, ASCO, Deutsche Stiftung Eierstockkrebs, ENGAGE, ESGO, GCIG, Medical writing (MSD). David Tan reports receiving research funding from the National Medical Research Council (NMRC) Clinician Scientist Award Senior Investigator Grant (CSASI21jun-0003), the Pangestu Family Foundation Gynaecological Cancer Research Fund; and product samples from AstraZeneca, Eisai, MSD (non-financial interest) for research trials. Institutional research grants from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Roche; personal fees for advisory board membership from AstraZeneca, Bayer, BioNTech, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Genmab, GSK, MSD, PMV Pharma, Roche; personal fees as an invited speaker from AstraZeneca, Eisai, GSK, Merck Serono, MSD, Roche, Takeda; travel support from AstraZeneca, Eisai, GSK, Merck Serono, MSD, Roche, Takeda; current non-renumerated role as protocol chair of Asia Pacific Gynecologic Oncology Trials Group (APGOT); previous non-renumerated role as Chair of the Asia Pacific Gynecologic Oncology Trials Group (APGOT); a previous non-renumerated role as the Society President of the Gynecologic Cancer Group Singapore; non-renumerated membership of the Board of Directors of the GCIG; ownership of stocks/shares of Asian Microbiome Library (AMiLi). Toon Van Gorp reports consultancy fees (via institution) from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BioNTech, Cancer Communications and Consultancy Ltd, Eisai, GSK, ImmunoGen, Incyte, Karyopharm, MSD/Merck, OncXerna Therapeutics, Seagen, Tubulis, Zentalis; corporate sponsored research (via institution) from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Roche; honoraria for lectures (via institution) from AstraZeneca, Eisai, GSK, ImmunoGen, MSD; travel support from AstraZeneca, ImmunoGen, MSD, PharmaMar; grants/contracts from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Roche; chair of the Belgian and Luxembourg Gynaecological Oncology Group. Stephen Welch reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, Eisai, GSK, Merck; advisory boards with Eisai, Incyte, GSK, Roche, Takeda.All other authors declare no conflict of interest., (© IGCS and ESGO 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (LGS) is a severe, childhood-onset epilepsy that is typically refractory to treatment. We surveyed the current landscape of LGS treatment, aiming to identify challenges to the development of efficacious therapies, and to articulate corresponding priorities toward clinical trials that improve outcomes., Methods: The LGS Special Interest Group of the Pediatric Epilepsy Research Consortium integrated evidence from the literature and expert opinion, into a narrative review., Results: We provide an overview of approved and emerging medical, dietary, surgical and neuromodulation approaches for LGS. We note that quality of care could be improved by standardizing LGS treatment based on expert consensus and empirical data. Whereas LGS natural history is incompletely understood, prospective studies and use of large retrospective datasets to understand LGS across the lifespan would enable clinical trials that address these dynamics. Recent discoveries related to LGS pathophysiology should enable development of disease-modifying therapies, which are currently lacking. Finally, clinical trials have focused chiefly on seizures involving "drops," but should incorporate additional patient-centered outcomes, using emerging measures adapted to people with LGS., Interpretation: Clinicians and researchers should enact these priorities, with the goal of patient-centered clinical trials that are tailored to LGS pathophysiology and natural history., (© 2024 The Author(s). Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Neurological Association.)

Adequate and transparent reporting is necessary for critically appraising research. Yet, evidence suggests that the design, conduct, analysis, interpretation, and reporting of oral health research could be greatly improved. Accordingly, the Task Force on Design and Analysis in Oral Health Research-statisticians and trialists from academia and industry-empaneled a group of authors to develop methodological and statistical reporting guidelines identifying the minimum information needed to document and evaluate observational studies and clinical trials in oral health: the Oral Health Statistics (OHStat) Guidelines. Drafts were circulated to the editors of 85 oral health journals and to task force members and sponsors and discussed at a December 2020 workshop attended by 49 researchers. The final version was subsequently approved by the task force in September 2021, submitted for journal review in 2022, and revised in 2023. The checklist consists of 48 guidelines: 5 for introductory information, 17 for methods, 13 for statistical analysis, 6 for results, and 7 for interpretation; 7 are specific to clinical trials. Each of these guidelines identifies relevant information, explains its importance, and often describes best practices. The checklist was published in multiple journals. The article was published simultaneously in Journal of Dental Research Clinical and Translational Research, the Journal of the American Dental Association, and the Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. Completed checklists should accompany manuscripts submitted for publication to these and other oral health journals to help authors, journal editors, and reviewers verify that the manuscript provides the information necessary to adequately document and evaluate the research., (Copyright © 2024 Task Force on Design & Analysis in Oral Health Research 2024. Published by Sage Publications, Inc. on behalf of International Association for Dental, Oral, and Craniofacial Research and by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of American Dental Association and American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Adequate and transparent reporting is necessary for critically appraising published research. Yet, ample evidence suggests that the design, conduct, analysis, interpretation, and reporting of oral health research could be greatly improved. Accordingly, the Task Force on Design and Analysis in Oral Health Research-statisticians and trialists from academia and industry-identified the minimum information needed to report and evaluate observational studies and clinical trials in oral health: the Oral Health Statistical (OHStat) Guidelines. Drafts were circulated to the editors of 85 oral health journals and to Task Force members and sponsors and discussed at a December 2020 workshop attended by 49 researchers. The guidelines were subsequently revised by the Task Force's writing group. The guidelines draw heavily from the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials, Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE), and Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials harms guidelines and incorporate the Statistical Analysis and Methods in Published Literature guidelines for reporting statistics, the Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications principles for documenting images, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation indicating the quality of evidence. The guidelines also recommend reporting estimates in clinically meaningful units using confidence intervals, rather than relying on P values. In addition, OHStat introduces 7 new guidelines that concern the text itself, such as checking the congruence between abstract and text, structuring the discussion, and listing conclusions to make them more specific. OHStat does not replace other reporting guidelines; it incorporates those most relevant to dental researches into a single document. Manuscripts using the OHStat guidelines will provide more information specific to oral health research., (Copyright © 2024 © Task Force on Design & Analysis in Oral Health Research 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To analyze the international status and level of clinical trial quality in China, and explore the advantages and value of scientific regulation of clinical research quality in China. Methods: The data is sourced from the relevant reports publicly released by the National Medical Products Administration (NMPA), the inspection reports and announcements published by the Center for Food and Drug Inspection of the NMPA, the inspection data displayed on the official website of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), as well as clinical diagnosis and treatment guidelines issued by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) of United States and the Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology (CSCO) (data as of July 21, 2023). This data provides an analysis of the regulatory status of the implementation of clinical drug trials in China, inspection data, and the approval and market entry of new oncology drugs and feedback from their practical application. Results: The clinical trial quality inspection systems of China and the United States are generally aligned, with similar inspection subjects, focus areas, and public disclosure pathways. However, each has its characteristics in terms of inspection targets and types. The quality of clinical trial data in China has been continuously improving. Between 2009-2015 and 2016-July 2023, China underwent 25 and 20 FDA Bioresearch Monitoring (BIMO) inspections, respectively. The inspection results showing "No Action Indicated" (NAI) improved from 48.0% to 85.0%, while "Voluntary Action Indicated" (VAI) decreased from 44.0% to 15.0%. Official Action Indicated (OAI) measures were required in 2009 and 2012. Compared to the 2009-2015 period, there has been a clear upward trend in the quality of clinical trial data since 2016. From 2016 to July 2023, the number of new oncology drugs developed by Chinese pharmaceutical companies and included in professional guidelines has steadily increased. Specifically, 37 drugs (58.7%) were included in the 2022 edition of the CSCO guidelines, and 15 drugs (23.8%) were included in the 2023 edition of the NCCN guidelines, with 10 of these drugs featured in both guidelines. Conclusions: The implementation quality of clinical trials in China has gained a certain level of international recognition and competitiveness. This progress is attributed to national macro-level guidance, a unique institutional model, and clinical practices aligned with international standards. In the future, it will be necessary to further strengthen the scientific regulatory system and enhance clinical research capabilities to continue advancing the high-quality development of clinical trials.

Background: Neurology trials typically rely on composite scales for measuring symptom severity. Completing all items in a long scale can be burdensome for patients, caregivers, and trial personnel., Objectives: To test the hypothesis that sparse item testing, aided by item-response modelling, can preserve the power for detecting treatment effect in a controlled trial., Methods: UPDRS (Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale) Part III (motor examinations) data from a placebo-controlled trial (N = 391) of ropinirole were analysed with a longitudinal item-response model. Symptom severity was estimated directly from item scores as a latent variable, without needing the total score. This enabled sparse item testing. With the symptom severity as a clinical endpoint, the potential power loss for detecting treatment effect due to the sparse testing was assessed by simulation., Results: When each patient took 18 of all 27 tests in UPDRS Part III at each study visit, there was no appreciable power loss. Reducing four visits to three also had negligible effects on power. A threefold reduction of the total tests that each patient needed to do throughout the trial, from 108 to 27, only compromised power slightly, e.g., from 92 to 87% at N = 160., Conclusions: These findings show that using the symptom severity derived from item scores as the endpoint allows sparse testing to drastically reduce trial burden without incurring major power loss. This benefit would multiply for indications like Alzheimer's disease where modern trials often require patients to be tested on multiple scales at several times., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Adequate and transparent reporting is necessary for critically appraising published research. Yet, ample evidence suggests that the design, conduct, analysis, interpretation, and reporting of oral health research could be greatly improved. Accordingly, the Task Force on Design and Analysis in Oral Health Research-statisticians and trialists from academia and industry-identified the minimum information needed to report and evaluate observational studies and clinical trials in oral health: the OHStat Guidelines. Drafts were circulated to the editors of 85 oral health journals and to Task Force members and sponsors and discussed at a December 2020 workshop attended by 49 researchers. The guidelines were subsequently revised by the Task Force's writing group. The guidelines draw heavily from the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT), Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE), and CONSORT harms guidelines and incorporate the SAMPL guidelines for reporting statistics, the CLIP principles for documenting images, and the GRADE indicating the quality of evidence. The guidelines also recommend reporting estimates in clinically meaningful units using confidence intervals, rather than relying on P values. In addition, OHStat introduces 7 new guidelines that concern the text itself, such as checking the congruence between abstract and text, structuring the discussion, and listing conclusions to make them more specific. OHStat does not replace other reporting guidelines; it incorporates those most relevant to dental research into a single document. Manuscripts using the OHStat guidelines will provide more information specific to oral health research., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe authors declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: All authors have completed the ICMJE unified competing interest form, a copy of which is available from the corresponding author.To encourage dissemination of the OHStat Statement, this article and the checklist is freely available on http://taskforceondesign.org/. This article has been simultaneously copublished in the Journal of Dental Research, The Journal of the American Dental Association, The Angle Orthodontist, the Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, and the Journal of Endodontics. The articles are identical except for minor stylistic and spelling differences in keeping with each journal’s style. Any of those journal’s citations can be used when citing this article.

Background: Dissemination and outcome reporting biases are a significant problem in clinical research, with far-reaching implications for both scientific understanding and clinical decision-making. This study investigates the prevalence of dissemination- and outcome reporting biases in registered interventional malaria research., Methods: All malaria interventional trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov from 2010 to 2020 were identified. Subsequently, publications that matched the registration were searched. The primary outcome measures were the percentage of registered studies that resulted in subsequent publication of study results, the concordance between registered outcomes, and reported outcomes. Secondary outcomes were compliance with WHO standards for timely publication (issued in 2017) of summary study results in the respective trial registry (within 12 months of study completion) or peer-reviewed publication (within 24 months of study completion) was evaluated., Results: A total of 579 trials were identified on ClinicalTrials.gov, of which 544 met the inclusion criteria. Notably, almost 36.6% of these trials (199/544) were registered retrospectively, with 129 (23.7%) registered after the first patient enrolment and 70 (12.9%) following study completion. Publications were identified for 351 out of 544 registered trials (64.5%), involving 1,526,081 study participants. Conversely, publications were not found for 193 of the 544 registrations (35.5%), which aimed to enrol 417,922 study participants. Among these 544 registrations, 444 (81.6%) did not meet the WHO standard to post summary results within 12 months of primary study completion (the last visit of the last subject for collection of data on the primary outcome), while 386 out of 544 registrations (71.0%) failed to publish their results in a peer-reviewed journal within 24 months of primary study completion. Discrepancies were noted in the reported primary outcomes compared to the registered primary outcomes in 47.6% (222/466) of the published trials, and an even higher discordance rate of 73.2% (341/466 publications) for secondary outcomes., Conclusions: Non-dissemination remains a significant issue in interventional malaria research, with most trials failing to meet WHO standards for timely dissemination of summary results and peer-reviewed journal publications. Additionally, outcome reporting bias is highly prevalent across malaria publications. To address these challenges, it is crucial to implement strategies that enhance the timely reporting of research findings and reduce both non-dissemination and outcome reporting bias., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Low English language literacy is a common barrier to participation in clinical trials. Patient information leaflets (PILs) used in clinical trials are often lengthy, complex and have poor readability; this is a persistent and prevalent problem common to trials across the world. Simplifying the information provided in PILs can lead to improved understanding, comprehension and knowledge. The aim of this project was to develop recommendations for developing accessible PILs for clinical trials through a literature review of published and grey literature and co-working with marginalised communities, patients, and health and social care charities., Methods: A literature review of MEDLINE, Embase and online resources was conducted, and recommendations for developing accessible PILs were extracted from eligible published and grey literature. Grey literature which contained insights into more inclusive forms of communication was also identified and summarised. Meetings were held with two racially marginalised community groups, two groups involving autistic adults and/or adults with learning difficulties and a patient advisory group. Examples of accessible PILs were shared and discussions held about the content and format of the PILs and suggestions for changes/improvements. National Voices, a coalition of health and social care charities in England, held a national online workshop with charities and lived experience partners. Recommendations identified from the multiple sources were coded, collated and refined to develop an overarching framework of recommendations., Results: The framework consists of 74 recommendations for developing accessible PILs for clinical trials. Recommendations cover the five topics of formatting, information presentation, writing style, content and accessibility., Conclusions: This project has developed a comprehensive framework of recommendations to guide researchers in the development of accessible PILs for clinical trials. Findings from previous research and from co-working with marginalised communities, patients and health and social care charities were collated to ensure that a diverse range of voices and experiences informed the framework. These recommendations aim to support researchers to develop better study information to reduce English language literacy as a barrier to participation in clinical trials., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. D. v. D. has National Institutes of Health funding unrelated to this work and has received grants from Merck and consulting fees and honoraria from Shionogi, Merck, Union, Roche, Qpex, Pfizer, Entasis, and Clinical Care Options. J. M. C. R. reports no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed.

Purpose: As the number of clinical trials in China continues to grow, the assessment of competency of Clinical Research Coordinators (CRCs), who play a crucial role in clinical trials, has become an important and challenging topic. This study aims to construct a competency model for CRCs tailored to the Chinese context, in order to promote the standardisation and regulated development of the CRC industry., Study Design and Setting: This study was conducted in China, engaging CRCs as the primary subjects. A competency evaluation model for CRCs was constructed through literature review, semi-structured interviews, Delphi expert consultation and the analytic hierarchy process. A questionnaire survey was distributed to a broad sample of CRCs across China to evaluate the model's reliability and validity., Results: The final model encompasses 4 core competency dimensions and 37 indicators, tailored to assess the competencies of CRCs in China. The questionnaire yielded an effective response rate of 81.83%, with high internal consistency(Cronbach's α>0.7). Factor analysis confirmed the model's structure, indicating good reliability and validity., Conclusion: This study represents a pioneering effort in constructing a competency model specifically designed for Chinese CRCs, complemented by a robust and valid assessment scale. The findings bear significant implications for the recruitment, training, development and management of CRCs., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Clinical trials play a crucial role in biomedical research, and it is important to register them in public registries to ensure transparency and prevent research waste. In this study, we wished to determine what steps need to be taken to identify every clinical trial run in India that has been registered in any of the (non-Indian) World Health Organization-recognised primary registries. Of the 16 registries, we studied all except that of the European Union, which will be studied separately., Methods: Two methodologies were employed for each registry, except for four that did not facilitate one or the other method. Methodology A involved downloading all the records in a registry and querying them. Methodology B involved conducting a search via the registry website., Results: Only four registries provided consistent results with both methodologies. Seven registries had different results from the two methodologies. Of these, in four cases, in Methodology A one field indicated that the study ran in India, while another indicated otherwise., Conclusions: The above-mentioned ambiguities should be addressed by the concerned registries. Overall, this study reinforces the need for improved data accuracy and transparency in clinical trial registries and emphasizes the importance of resolving complications faced by users while navigating the registries. Ensuring accurate and comprehensive registration of clinical trials is essential for meta-research and the use of such data by a variety of stakeholders., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

This review describes that a core outcome set (COS) represents a consensus-based minimum set of outcomes to be collected and reported in clinical trials involving a particular disease or population. A COS serves as a guideline for global consensus on which outcome domains should be collected in all clinical trials. After defining what to measure, it becomes crucial to reach consensus on how to measure it. This includes the selection of appropriate outcome measurement instruments with credible measurement properties and interpretable thresholds of meaning., (Published under Open Access CC-BY-NC-BD 4.0. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.)

Background: Neurological disorders have had a substantial rise the last three decades, imposing substantial burdens on both patients and healthcare costs. Consequently, the demand for high-quality research has become crucial for exploring effective treatment options. However, current neurology research has some limitations in terms of transparency, reproducibility, and reporting bias. The adoption of reporting guidelines (RGs) and trial registration policies has been proven to address these issues and improve research quality in other medical disciplines. It is unclear the extent to which these policies are being endorsed by neurology journals. Therefore, our study aims to evaluate the publishing policies of top neurology journals regarding RGs and trial registration., Methods: For this cross-sectional study, neurology journals were identified using the 2021 Scopus CiteScore Tool. The top 100 journals were listed and screened for eligibility for our study. In a masked, duplicate fashion, investigators extracted data on journal characteristics, policies on RGs, and policies on trial registration using information from each journal's Instruction for Authors webpage. Additionally, investigators contacted journal editors to ensure information was current and accurate. No human participants were involved in this study. Our data collection and analyses were performed from December 14, 2022, to January 9, 2023., Results: Of the 356 neurology journals identified, the top 100 were included into our sample. The five-year impact of these journals ranged from 50.844 to 2.226 (mean [SD], 7.82 [7.01]). Twenty-five (25.0%) journals did not require or recommend a single RG within their Instructions for Authors webpage, and a third (33.0%) did not require or recommend clinical trial registration. The most frequently mentioned RGs were CONSORT (64.6%), PRISMA (52.5%), and ARRIVE (53.1%). The least mentioned RG was QUOROM (1.0%), followed by MOOSE (9.0%), and SQUIRE (17.9%)., Conclusions: While many top neurology journals endorse the use of RGs and trial registries, there are still areas where their adoption can be improved. Addressing these shortcomings leads to further advancements in the field of neurology, resulting in higher-quality research and better outcomes for patients., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Adequate and transparent reporting is necessary for critically appraising published research, yet ample evidence suggests that the design, conduct, analysis, interpretation, and reporting of oral health research could be greatly improved. Accordingly, the Task Force on Design and Analysis in Oral Health Research, statisticians and trialists from academia and industry, identified the minimum information needed to report and evaluate observational studies and clinical trials in oral health: the OHStat guidelines. Drafts were circulated to the editors of 85 oral health journals and to Task Force members and sponsors and discussed at a December 2020 workshop attended by 49 researchers. The guidelines were subsequently revised by the Task Force writing group. The guidelines draw heavily from the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT), Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology, and CONSORT harms guidelines, and incorporate the SAMPL guidelines for reporting statistics, the CLIP principles for documenting images, and the GRADE indicating the quality of evidence. The guidelines also recommend reporting estimates in clinically meaningful units using confidence intervals, rather than relying on P values. In addition, OHStat introduces seven new guidelines that concern the text itself, such as checking the congruence between abstract and text, structuring the discussion, and listing conclusions to make them more specific. OHStat does not replace other reporting guidelines; it incorporates those most relevant to dental research into a single document. Manuscripts using the OHStat guidelines will provide more information specific to oral health research., (© 2024 by The EH Angle Education and Research Foundation, Inc.)

The Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) Endometrial Cancer Consensus Conference on Clinical Research (ECCC) was held in Incheon, South Korea, Nov 2-3, 2023. The aims were to develop consensus statements for future trials in endometrial cancer to achieve harmonisation on design elements, select important questions, and identify unmet needs. All 33 GCIG member groups participated in the development, refinement, and finalisation of 18 statements within four topic groups, addressing adjuvant treatment in high-risk disease; treatment for metastatic and recurrent disease; trial designs for rare endometrial cancer subgroups and special circumstances; and specific methodology and adaptation for trials in low-resource settings. In addition, eight areas of unmet need were identified. This was the first GCIG Consensus Conference to include patient advocates and an expert on inclusion, diversity, equity, and access to take part in all aspects of the process and output. Four early-career investigators were also selected for participation, ensuring that they represented different GCIG member groups and regions. Unanimous consensus was obtained for 16 of the 18 statements, with 97% concordance for the remaining two. Using the described methodology from previous Ovarian Cancer Consensus Conferences, this conference did not require even one minority statement. The high acceptance rate following active involvement in the preparation, discussion, and refinement of the statements by all representatives confirmed the consensus progress within a global academic setting, and the expectation that the ECCC will lead to greater harmonisation, actualisation, inclusion, and resolution of unmet needs in clinical research for individuals living with and beyond endometrial cancer worldwide., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests All authors report that the KGOG paid for their 2-night hotel stay and basic meals during the 2 days of the ECCC on Clinical Research meeting. CLC reports a research grant paid to her institution from Varian; payment to her institution for participation on a data safety monitoring board from Merck; and unpaid roles as chair of GCIG Endometrial Committee and member of Guidelines Committees for Endometrial cancer of the European Society of Gynaecologic Oncology (ESGO) and the European Society of Radiotherapy and Oncology. GE reports personal consulting fees from MSD, personal fees from Eisai, and support for attending a meeting or travel from MSD. LE reports personal consulting fees AstraZeneca, GSK, and MSD; personal fees from AstraZeneca and GSK, and support for attending a meeting or travel from AstraZeneca and GSK. RAN reports research grants paid to his institution from Elekta, Varian, and Accuray; and payment to his institution for presentations from Elekta and MSD. DL reports research grants both personal and paid to her institution from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, MSD, Novartis, Pharmamar, and Seagen; personal grants from Corcept, Oncoinvest, and Sutro; and grants to her institution from Incyte and Roche; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Corcept, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, MSD, Novartis, Oncoinvest, Pharmamar, Seagen, and Sutro; payment for presentations from Clovis Oncology, Corcept, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, MSD, Novartis, Oncoinvest, Pharmamar, Seagen, and Sutro; support for attending a meeting or travel from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, MSD and GSK; and payments for participation on a data safety monitoring board from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Corcept, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, MSD, Novartis, Oncoinvest, Pharmamar, Seagen, and Sutro. AO reports research grants paid to his institution from AstraZeneca; consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, uncompensated participation on data and safety monitoring boards of studies funded by AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline; and unpaid roles as principal investigator on investigator-initiated trials and on steering committees of trials funded by AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline. BP reports research grants from Tesaro/GSK, Merck, AstraZeneca, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Sutro, Incyte, Clovis Oncology, Roche/Genentech, Mersana, Celsion/Immunon, Imab, Takeda, Toray, VBL Therapeutics, InxMed, Agenus, Seagen, NRG Oncology, Duality Bio, Xencor, Onconova, Celgene, Sutro Biopharma, Novocure, Immunogen, Eisai, Acrivon, and Alkermes; consulting fees from Tesaro/GSK, AstraZeneca, Merck, Immunogen, Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) Foundation, SeaGen, Lily, Eisai, Signatera, Celsion, Butro Biopharma, Imvax, Incyte, InxMed, Onconova Therapeutics, R Pharm, Regeneron, and Duality Bio; payment for presentations from Bioascend, PERS, Vanium, Curio, OncLive, Yale University and PeerView; support for attending a meeting or travel from GOG Partners, payment for participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board from Sutro, AstraZeneca, GOG Foundation, Celsion/Immunon, Toray, InxMed, Imvax, Imab, Tesaro/GSK, Merck, Mersana, Nuvation, and BioNtech; and unpaid leadership roles in boards, societies and committees: Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO) Clinical Practice Committee Chair, SGO Board of Directors, SGO COVID-19 Taskforce co-chair, GOG Partners, and New York Obstetrical Society Second VP. BH reports textbook royalties from Elsevier; consulting fees from Tempus; honoraria for lectures from Leica and Projects in Knowledge; and unpaid leadership roles on the International Society of Gynecological Pathologists Board of Directors (as member at large) and on the Endometrial Cancer MSI Committee of the College of American Pathologists. IR-C reports research grants from AstraZeneca, Clovis, GSK, Mersana, BMS, and MSD; payment for presentations from AstraZeneca, Clovis, GSK, Mersana, BMS, MSD, Roche, Pharmamar, Seagen, Eisai, and Novartis; support for attending a meeting or travel from Roche, GSK, AstraZeneca, Pharmamar, and MSD; and payment for participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board from Clovis, Deciphera, Adaptimmue, Sutro, and Immunogen. DG reports support for attending meetings or travel from IGCS Board of Directors; payment for participation on a data and safety monitoring board from Merck, and a leadership role in NRG Oncology. AM reports payment for participation as independent statistician on data safety monitoring boards from ONY Biotech, Regeneron, and Genentech/Roche. NC reports payments or honoraria for presentations from GSK, Seagen, Akesobio, AstraZeneca, eTheRNA immunotherapies NV, Kartos, MSD, Mersana, ImmunoGen, Eisai, Seattle Genetics, TouchIME, and Medscape Oncology; support for attending a meeting or travel from Roche, Genmab, and Amgen; payment for participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board from GSK, Mersana, Seagen, ImmunoGen, Akesobio, Eisai, AstraZeneca, Mersana, Seattle Genetics, eTheRNA immunotherapies NV, and Kartos; and leadership roles as President of ESGO and Chair of European Network for Gynaecological Oncological Trial groups Early Drug Development Network. MAP reports grants paid to his institution from GSK; payment for participation on a data and safety monitoring board from GSK, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Merck, Immunogen, Clovis Oncology, Jazz Pharma, and SeaGen; and payment to his institution for a leadership role on a board or committee from NRG Oncology. MAB reports payment to his institution for participation on a data and safety monitoring board from Immunogen; and employment as physician at The Permanente Medical Group. J-WK, EA, SIK, J-YP, LM, PBO, AB, DM, VG, TB, CG, TM, HW, XM-G, WS, and GS declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

Objective: We sought to evaluate the quality and timeliness of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure reporting, which have not been previously studied., Methods: Clinical trials that informed new US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals for the first rheumatological indication between 1995 and 2021 were identified. Data were recorded to determine whether collected PROs were published, met minimum clinically important difference (MCID) or statistical significance ( P < 0.05) thresholds, and were consistent with Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT)-PRO standards. Hazard ratios and Kaplan-Meier estimate were used to assess the time from FDA approval to PRO publication., Results: Thirty-one FDA approvals corresponded with 110 pivotal trials and 262 reported PROs. Of the 90 included studies, 1 (1.1%) met all 5 recommended items, 10 (11.1%) met 4 items, 17 (18.9%) met 3 items, 21 (23.3%) met 2 items, 26 (28.9%) met 1 item, and 15 (16.7%) met none of the reporting standards. Most PROs met MCID thresholds (149/262; 56.9%) and were statistically significant (223/262; 85.1%). Of our subset analysis, one-third of PROs were not published upfront (70/212; 33%) and 1 of 9 (22/212; 10.4%) remained unpublished ≥ 4 years after initial trial reporting. Publication rates were highest for the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (97.4%) and lowest for the 36-item Short Form Health Survey (81.8%). Less than half of these published PROs met MCID and statistical significance thresholds (94/212; 44.3%)., Conclusion: One in 9 PROs remained unpublished for ≥ 4 years after initial trial reporting, and compliance with CONSORT-PRO reporting guidelines was poor. Efforts should be made to ensure PROs are adequately reported and expeditiously published., (Copyright © 2024 by the Journal of Rheumatology.)

Purpose: Novel interventions for the prevention or treatment of acute kidney injury (AKI) are currently lacking. To facilitate the evaluation and adoption of new treatments, the use of the most appropriate design and endpoints for clinical trials in AKI is critical and yet there is little consensus regarding these issues. We aimed to develop recommendations on endpoints and trial design for studies of AKI prevention and treatment interventions based on existing data and expert consensus., Methods: At the 31st Acute Disease Quality Initiative (ADQI) meeting, international experts in critical care, nephrology, involving adults and pediatrics, biostatistics and people with lived experience (PWLE) were assembled. We focused on four main areas: (1) patient enrichment strategies, (2) prevention and attenuation studies, (3) treatment studies, and (4) innovative trial designs of studies other than traditional (parallel arm or cluster) randomized controlled trials. Using a modified Delphi process, recommendations and consensus statements were developed based on existing data, with > 90% agreement among panel members required for final adoption., Results: The panel developed 12 consensus statements for clinical trial endpoints, application of enrichment strategies where appropriate, and inclusion of PWLE to inform trial designs. Innovative trial designs were also considered., Conclusion: The current lack of specific therapy for prevention or treatment of AKI demands refinement of future clinical trial design. Here we report the consensus findings of the 31st ADQI group meeting which has attempted to address these issues including the use of predictive and prognostic enrichment strategies to enable appropriate patient selection., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

The main objectives of multidisciplinary clinical investigation center (CIC-P) are to facilitate the availability of new drugs for patients, to enhance the visibility and attractiveness of French clinical research, to improve the quality of early phase trials, and to enhance the value of academic research by evaluating molecules in rare diseases. Since 2017, the CIC-P has been committed to a quality approach process, launching in 2018 its first satisfaction survey on patient care and clinical trial management of all its employees. A second satisfaction survey targeted by profession type was to be launched in 2020, in view of the requirements of the ISO 9001:2015 standard, but the process was interrupted following the coronavirus diseases 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The successful reorganization of the CIC-P activity during the first containment of the COVID-19 pandemic was driven by the implementation of a quality management system that promotes continuous improvement through the organization and involvement of all the staff. This voluntary and participative approach motivated the CIC-P to apply for the organizational sesame. The ISO 9001:2015 certification of CIC-P aims at increasing its performance, to satisfying its customers and to fully integrate its activities in a continuous improvement process, according to the requirements of this international standard, through the deployment of quality tools such as The Deming wheel (PDCA), an indispensable tool for transformation and reorganization; the analysis of the environment by the strengths, weakness, opportunities, threats (SWOT) analysis tool; the analysis and management of risks by the FMEA method, and all with performance indicators (SMART) and precise objectives at each stage of a project/process. The implementation of satisfaction questionnaires remains the essential tool for evaluating the expectations and needs of interested parties, but also for improving the quality of CIC-P activities and services. All these tools put in place have allowed us to continuously improve the means of production and to constantly improve our organization., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Disclosures The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Rationale: Low back pain (LBP) is a common condition with a significant societal burden. Manual therapy is an effective treatment for LBP and recommended in clinical practice guidelines. While the quantity of literature supporting the use of manual therapy is large, the methodological quality and transparency of this collective work are unclear., Aims and Objectives: Explore the transparency in reporting of clinical trials assessing manual therapy interventions in patients with LBP by comparing planned components in the trial registration with what was reported in the published manuscript., Methods: Three databases were searched to identify trials assessing the treatment effect of manual therapy for LBP from January 2005 to May 2023. Studies were included if the manual therapy consisted of thrust manipulations, mobilizations or muscle energy techniques., Results: From 4462 studies initially identified, 167 studies remained in the final review after title, abstract and full-text review. Only 87 (52.1%) of the 167 studies were registered (n = 57 prospectively and n = 30 retrospectively). Primary outcomes in the publications were identical to the registration in 54 (62.1%) of the registered trials. Secondary outcomes in the publication were identical to the registration in 27 (31.0%) of the registered trials. The CONSORT reporting guideline was referenced in only 19 (21.8%) trials. Multiple discrepancies between registration and publication were noted for primary and secondary outcomes. All trials had eligibility criteria in the registration that matched their corresponding manuscript, while only four (4.6%) trial registrations addressed any type of statistical analysis plan., Conclusion: Approximately half of the trials were not registered. Of those registered, only half were registered prospectively. Substantial discrepancies existed between registered and published outcomes that were never addressed by the authors, raising questions about potential bias. Transparency can be improved through more stringent requirements during manuscript submission to journals, and better reporting of the rationale for discrepancies between registration and publication., (© 2024 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: The Early Phase Cancer Prevention Clinical Trials Program (Consortia), led by the Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, supports and conducts trials assessing safety, tolerability, and cancer preventive potential of a variety of interventions. Accrual to cancer prevention trials includes the recruitment of unaffected populations, posing unique challenges related to minimizing participant burden and risk, given the less evident or measurable benefits to individual participants. The Accrual Quality Improvement Program was developed to address these challenges and better understand the multiple determinants of accrual activity throughout the life of the trial. Through continuous monitoring of accrual data, Accrual Quality Improvement Program identifies positive and negative factors in real-time to optimize enrollment rates for ongoing and future trials., Methods: The Accrual Quality Improvement Program provides a web-based centralized infrastructure for collecting, analyzing, visualizing, and storing qualitative and quantitative participant-, site-, and study-level data. The Accrual Quality Improvement Program approaches cancer prevention clinical trial accrual as multi-factorial, recognizing protocol design, potential participants' characteristics, and individual site as well as study-wide implementation issues., Results: The Accrual Quality Improvement Program was used across 39 Consortia trials from 2014 to 2022 to collect comprehensive trial information. The Accrual Quality Improvement Program captures data at the participant level, including number of charts reviewed, potential participants contacted and reasons why participants were not eligible for contact or did not consent to the trial or start intervention. The Accrual Quality Improvement Program also captures site-level (e.g. staffing issues) and study-level (e.g. when protocol amendments are made) data at each step of the recruitment/enrollment process, from potential participant identification to contact, consent, intervention, and study completion using a Recruitment Journal. Accrual Quality Improvement Program's functionality also includes tracking and visualization of a trial's cumulative accrual rate compared to the projected accrual rate, including a zone-based performance rating with corresponding quality improvement intervention recommendations., Conclusion: The challenges associated with recruitment and timely completion of early phase cancer prevention clinical trials necessitate a data collection program capable of continuous collection and quality improvement. The Accrual Quality Improvement Program collects cumulative data across National Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Prevention early phase clinical trials, providing the opportunity for real-time review of participant-, site-, and study-level data and thereby enables responsive recruitment strategy and protocol modifications for improved recruitment rates to ongoing trials. Of note, Accrual Quality Improvement Program data collected from ongoing trials will inform future trials to optimize protocol design and maximize accrual efficiency., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of using cheaper-but-noisier outcome measures, such as a short questionnaire, for large simple clinical trials., Background: To detect associations reliably, trials must avoid bias and random error. To reduce random error, we can increase the size of the trial and increase the accuracy of the outcome measurement process. However, with fixed resources, there is a trade-off between the number of participants a trial can enrol and the amount of information that can be collected on each participant during data collection., Methods: To consider the effect on measurement error of using outcome scales with varying numbers of categories, we define and calculate the variance from categorisation that would be expected from using a category midpoint; define the analytic conditions under which such a measure is cost-effective; use meta-regression to estimate the impact of participant burden, defined as questionnaire length, on response rates; and develop an interactive web-app to allow researchers to explore the cost-effectiveness of using such a measure under plausible assumptions., Results: An outcome scale with only a few categories greatly reduced the variance of non-measurement. For example, a scale with five categories reduced the variance of non-measurement by 96% for a uniform distribution. We show that a simple measure will be more cost-effective than a gold-standard measure if the relative increase in variance due to using it is less than the relative increase in cost from the gold standard, assuming it does not introduce bias in the measurement. We found an inverse power law relationship between participant burden and response rates such that a doubling the burden on participants reduces the response rate by around one third. Finally, we created an interactive web-app ( https://benjiwoolf.shinyapps.io/cheapbutnoisymeasures/ ) to allow exploration of when using a cheap-but-noisy measure will be more cost-effective using realistic parameters., Conclusion: Cheaper-but-noisier questionnaires containing just a few questions can be a cost-effective way of maximising power. However, their use requires a judgement on the trade-off between the potential increase in risk of information bias and the reduction in the potential of selection bias due to the expected higher response rates., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Investigator-initiated clinical trials - also known as non-regulatory or academic clinical trials, are conducted by investigators from academia or research organizations. They usually aim to address scientific questions with insufficient commercial implications and generate real-world applicable solutions, unlike trials sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry which are primarily focused on marketing approval of products that have a commercial value. For the trial results to be credible, adhering to robust methodology and the highest quality standards is paramount. Currently, investigator-initiated clinical trials in India are beyond the purview of the national regulatory authority. They are guided mainly by the National Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical and Health Research Involving Human Participants, 2017 published by Indian Council of Medical Research. They lack an accepted framework for review, conduct, monitoring, reporting of adverse events, and participant compensation. Considering this scenario, we discuss the challenges faced in an investigator initiated clinical trial and explore plausible solutions.

This Open Forum is relevant for investigators who conduct research with historically understudied and marginalized populations. The authors introduce a U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs clinical trial that experienced challenges with recruitment of African American or Black veterans and was terminated for not achieving its recruitment goals. The role of power dynamics in clinical research is discussed, specifically how unequal distributions of power may create recruitment challenges. The authors summarize three lessons learned and offer recommendations for sharing power equitably between investigators and potential participants. By recounting these experiences, the authors seek to promote culturally sensitive, veteran-centered approaches to recruitment in future clinical trials., Competing Interests: The authors report no financial relationships with commercial interests.

Objectives: Data sharing statements are considered routine in clinical trial reporting and represent a step toward data transparency. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) required clinical trials to publish data sharing statements. We aimed to assess the requirement for data sharing statements of individual participant data by biomedical journals and explore associations between journal characteristics and journal requirements for data sharing statements., Study Design and Setting: In this cross-sectional study, we included all biomedical journals that published clinical trials from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2022, and that were indexed by the Journal Citation Reports. The study outcome was the journal requirement for data sharing statements. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to assess the relationship between journal characteristics and requirement for data sharing statements., Results: Of the 3229 biomedical journals included in the analysis, 2345 (72.6%) required authors to include data sharing statements. Journals published in the UK (OR, 3.19 [95% CI, 2.43-4.22]) and endorsing the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (OR, 3.30 [95% CI, 2.78-3.92]) had greater odds of requiring data sharing statements. Journals that were open access, non-English language, in the Journal Citation Reports group of clinical medicine, and on the ICMJE list had lower odds of requiring data sharing statements, with ORs ranging from 0.18 to 0.81., Conclusion: Despite ICMJE recommendations, more than 27% of the biomedical journals that published clinical trials did not require clinical trials to include data sharing statements, highlighting room for improved transparency., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest All authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

With disease-modifying drugs on the horizon for degenerative ataxias, ecologically valid, finely granulated, digital health measures are highly warranted to augment clinical and patient-reported outcome measures. Gait and balance disturbances most often present as the first signs of degenerative cerebellar ataxia and are the most reported disabling features in disease progression. Thus, digital gait and balance measures constitute promising and relevant performance outcomes for clinical trials.This narrative review with embedded consensus will describe evidence for the sensitivity of digital gait and balance measures for evaluating ataxia severity and progression, propose a consensus protocol for establishing gait and balance metrics in natural history studies and clinical trials, and discuss relevant issues for their use as performance outcomes., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Adequate and transparent reporting is necessary for critically appraising research. Yet, evidence suggests that the design, conduct, analysis, interpretation, and reporting of oral health research could be greatly improved. Accordingly, the Task Force on Design and Analysis in Oral Health Research-statisticians and trialists from academia and industry-empaneled a group of authors to develop methodological and statistical reporting guidelines identifying the minimum information needed to document and evaluate observational studies and clinical trials in oral health: the OHstat Guidelines. Drafts were circulated to the editors of 85 oral health journals and to Task Force members and sponsors and discussed at a December 2020 workshop attended by 49 researchers. The final version was subsequently approved by the Task Force in September 2021, submitted for journal review in 2022, and revised in 2023. The checklist consists of 48 guidelines: 5 for introductory information, 17 for methods, 13 for statistical analysis, 6 for results, and 7 for interpretation; 7 are specific to clinical trials. Each of these guidelines identifies relevant information, explains its importance, and often describes best practices. The checklist was published in multiple journals. The article was published simultaneously in JDR Clinical and Translational Research, the Journal of the American Dental Association, and the Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. Completed checklists should accompany manuscripts submitted for publication to these and other oral health journals to help authors, journal editors, and reviewers verify that the manuscript provides the information necessary to adequately document and evaluate the research., (Copyright © 2024 Task Force on Design & Analysis in Oral Health Research 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Noninferiority clinical trials are crucial for evaluating the effectiveness of new interventions compared to standard interventions. By establishing statistical and clinical comparability, these trials can be conducted to demonstrate that a new intervention is not significantly inferior to the standard intervention. However, selecting appropriate noninferiority margins and study designs are essential to ensuring valid and reliable results. Moreover, employing the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement for reporting noninferiority clinical trials enhances the quality and transparency of research findings. This article addresses key considerations and challenges faced by investigators in planning, conducting, and interpreting the results of noninferiority clinical trials.

Adequate and transparent reporting is necessary for critically appraising published research. Yet, ample evidence suggests that the design, conduct, analysis, interpretation, and reporting of oral health research could be greatly improved. Accordingly, the Task Force on Design and Analysis in Oral Health Research-statisticians and trialists from academia and industry-identified the minimum information needed to report and evaluate observational studies and clinical trials in oral health: the OHStat Guidelines. Drafts were circulated to the editors of 85 oral health journals and to Task Force members and sponsors and discussed at a December 2020 workshop attended by 49 researchers. The guidelines were subsequently revised by the Task Force's writing group. The guidelines draw heavily from the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT), Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE), and CONSORT harms guidelines and incorporate the SAMPL guidelines for reporting statistics, the CLIP principles for documenting images, and the GRADE indicating the quality of evidence. The guidelines also recommend reporting estimates in clinically meaningful units using confidence intervals, rather than relying on P values. In addition, OHStat introduces 7 new guidelines that concern the text itself, such as checking the congruence between abstract and text, structuring the discussion, and listing conclusions to make them more specific. OHStat does not replace other reporting guidelines; it incorporates those most relevant to dental research into a single document. Manuscripts using the OHStat guidelines will provide more information specific to oral health research., (Copyright © 2024 Task Force on Design & Analysis in Oral Health Research 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: To improve the site selection process for clinical trials, we expanded a site survey to include standardized assessments of site commitment time, team experience, feasibility of tight timelines, and local medical community equipoise as factors that might better predict performance. We also collected contact information about institutional research services ahead of site onboarding., Aim: As a first step, we wanted to confirm that an expanded survey could be feasible and generalizable-that asking site teams for more details upfront was acceptable and that the survey could be completed in a reasonable amount of time, despite the assessment length., Methods: A standardized, two-part Site Assessment Survey Instrument (SASI), examining qualitative components and with multiple contact list sections, was developed using a publicly accessible dashboard and later transferred to a REDCap platform. After multiple rounds of internal testing, the SASI was deployed 11 times for multicenter trials. Follow-up questionnaires were sent to site teams to confirm that an expanded survey instrument is acceptable to the research community and could be completed during a brief work shift., Results: Respondents thought the SASI collected useful and relevant information about their sites (100%). Sites were "comfortable" (90%) supplying detailed information early in the site selection process and 57% completed the SASI in one to two hours., Conclusions: Coordinating centers and sites found the SASI tool to be acceptable and helpful when collecting data in consideration of multicenter trial site selection., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Bradley Barney's relationship with Johns Hopkins University includes: consulting or advisory and receives financial support. Salina Waddy and Ken Wiley work for the National Institutes of Health., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) is a promising treatment modality for melanoma in situ (MIS). However, variations in surgical technique limit the generalizability of existing data and may impede future study of MMS in clinical trials., Methods: A modified Delphi method was selected to establish consensus on optimal MMS techniques for treating MIS in future clinical trials. The Delphi method was selected due to the limited current data, the wide range of techniques used in the field, and the intention to establish a standardized technique for future clinical trials. A literature review and interviews with experienced MMS surgeons were performed to identify dimensions of the MMS technique for MIS that (1) likely impacted costs or outcomes of the procedure, and (2) showed significant variability between surgeons. A total of 8 dimensions of technical variation were selected. The Delphi process consisted of 2 rounds of voting and commentary, during which 44 expert Mohs surgeons across the United States rated their agreement with specific recommendations using a Likert scale., Results: Five of eight recommendations achieved consensus in Round 1. All 3 of the remaining recommendations achieved consensus in Round 2. Techniques achieving consensus in Round 1 included the use of a starting peripheral margin of ≤5 mm, application of immunohistochemistry, frozen tissue processing, and resecting to the depth of subcutaneous fat. Consensus on the use of Wood's lamp, dermatoscope, and negative tissue controls was established in Round 2., Conclusions: This study generated 8 consensus recommendations intended to offer guidance for Mohs surgeons treating MIS. The adoption of these recommendations will promote standardization to facilitate comparisons of aggregate data in multicenter clinical trials.

Clinical trials are essential for evaluating the efficacy and safety of new treatments and health interventions. However, while pharmacological trials are well-established, non-pharmacological trials face unique challenges related to their complexity and difficulties such as recruitment, retention, intervention standardisation, selection of outcome measures and blinding of clinicians, participants and data collectors. This communication paper describes the objectives, implementation steps and bylaws of the 'Trials foR heAlth Care inTerventIONs' Network (TRACTION), established by an international multiprofessional task force of experts to foster high-quality non-pharmacological research, ultimately improving patient care and healthcare outcomes.The TRACTION research network will provide information and resources through a collaborative hub for researchers, health professionals, patient research partners and stakeholders in diverse biomedical and healthcare areas, connecting people with different levels of expertise but with the same interests (eg, to evaluate the effect of non-pharmacological interventions, recruiting participants). This open network will support researchers in optimising trial design, participant recruitment, data management and analysis, and disseminating and implementing trial results.The network will also facilitate specialisation training and provide educational materials and mentoring., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Competing Interests: Intérêts concurrents:: Matthew Herder déclare avoir reçu des subventions des Instituts de recherche en santé du Canada (IRSC) et de l’Agence de la santé publique du Canada et une rémunération à titre de membre du Conseil d’examen du prix des médicaments brevetés. Srinivas Murthy déclare avoir reçu du financement des IRSC, de la Fondation pour la recherche en santé et du Fonds Wellcome. Il est membre du conseil d’administration de l’organisme Universities Allied for Essential Medicines.

Objective: large-scale multicentre clinical trials conducted by cooperative groups have generated a lot of evidence to establish better standard treatments. The Clinical Trials Act was enforced on 1 April 2018, in Japan, and it has remarkably increased the operational burden on investigators, but its long-term impact on cancer cooperative groups is unknown., Methods: a survey was conducted across the nine major cooperative groups that constitute the Japan Cancer Trials Network to assess the impact of Clinical Trials Act on the number of newly initiated trials from fiscal year (from 1 April to 31 March) 2017 to 2022 and that of ongoing trials on 1 April in each year from 2018 to 2023., Results: the number of newly initiated trials dropped from 38 trials in fiscal year 2017 to 26 trials in fiscal year 2018, surged to 50 trials in fiscal year 2019, but then gradually decreased to 25 trials by fiscal year 2022. Specified clinical trials decreased from 32 trials in fiscal year 2019 to 12 trials in fiscal year 2022. The number of ongoing trials was 220 trials in 2018, peaked at 245 trials in 2020, but then gradually decreased to 219 trials by 2023. The number of specified clinical trials has been in consistent decline. By April 2023, of the 20 ongoing non-specified clinical trials, nine adhered to Clinical Trials Act and 11 followed the Ethical Guidelines for Medical and Health Research Involving Human Subjects., Conclusion: the number of multicentre clinical trials in oncology gradually decreased after the Clinical Trials Act's enforcement, which underscores the need for comprehensive amendment of the Clinical Trials Act to streamline the operational process., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press.)