International multi-stakeholder consensus statement on clinical trial integrity

IF 1.6 Q4 REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY Middle East Fertility Society Journal Pub Date : 2024-04-05 DOI:10.1186/s43043-024-00171-z
Khalid Saeed Khan
{"title":"International multi-stakeholder consensus statement on clinical trial integrity","authors":"Khalid Saeed Khan","doi":"10.1186/s43043-024-00171-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"To prepare a set of statements for randomised clinical trials (RCT) integrity through an international multi-stakeholder consensus. The consensus was developed via multi-country multidisciplinary stakeholder group composition and engagement; evidence synthesis of 55 systematic reviews concerning RCT integrity; anonymized two-round modified Delphi survey with consensus threshold based on the average percentage of majority opinions; and a final consensus development meeting. Prospective registrations: ( https://osf.io/bhncy , https://osf.io/3ursn ). There were 30 stakeholders representing 15 countries from five continents including trialists, ethicists, methodologists, statisticians, consumer representatives, industry representatives, systematic reviewers, funding body panel members, regulatory experts, authors, journal editors, peer reviewers and advisors for resolving integrity concerns. Delphi survey response rate was 86.7% (26/30 stakeholders). There were 111 statements (73 stakeholder-provided, 46 systematic review-generated, 8 supported by both) in the initial long list, with eight additional statements provided during the consensus rounds. Through consensus the final set consolidated 81 statements (49 stakeholder-provided, 41 systematic review-generated, 9 supported by both). The entire RCT life cycle was covered by the set of statements including general aspects (n = 6), design and approval (n = 11), conduct and monitoring (n = 19), reporting of protocols and findings (n = 20), post-publication concerns (n = 12) and future research and development (n = 13). Implementation of this multi-stakeholder consensus statement is expected to enhance RCT integrity.","PeriodicalId":18532,"journal":{"name":"Middle East Fertility Society Journal","volume":"202 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Middle East Fertility Society Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s43043-024-00171-z","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

To prepare a set of statements for randomised clinical trials (RCT) integrity through an international multi-stakeholder consensus. The consensus was developed via multi-country multidisciplinary stakeholder group composition and engagement; evidence synthesis of 55 systematic reviews concerning RCT integrity; anonymized two-round modified Delphi survey with consensus threshold based on the average percentage of majority opinions; and a final consensus development meeting. Prospective registrations: ( https://osf.io/bhncy , https://osf.io/3ursn ). There were 30 stakeholders representing 15 countries from five continents including trialists, ethicists, methodologists, statisticians, consumer representatives, industry representatives, systematic reviewers, funding body panel members, regulatory experts, authors, journal editors, peer reviewers and advisors for resolving integrity concerns. Delphi survey response rate was 86.7% (26/30 stakeholders). There were 111 statements (73 stakeholder-provided, 46 systematic review-generated, 8 supported by both) in the initial long list, with eight additional statements provided during the consensus rounds. Through consensus the final set consolidated 81 statements (49 stakeholder-provided, 41 systematic review-generated, 9 supported by both). The entire RCT life cycle was covered by the set of statements including general aspects (n = 6), design and approval (n = 11), conduct and monitoring (n = 19), reporting of protocols and findings (n = 20), post-publication concerns (n = 12) and future research and development (n = 13). Implementation of this multi-stakeholder consensus statement is expected to enhance RCT integrity.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
国际多方利益相关者关于临床试验诚信的共识声明
通过国际多方利益相关者共识,编写一套随机临床试验 (RCT) 完整性声明。该共识是通过多国多学科利益相关者小组的组成和参与、55篇有关随机临床试验完整性的系统综述的证据综合、基于多数意见平均百分比的共识阈值的匿名两轮修正德尔菲调查以及最终的共识制定会议达成的。前瞻性注册:( https://osf.io/bhncy , https://osf.io/3ursn )。来自五大洲 15 个国家的 30 位利益相关者参加了会议,其中包括试验专家、伦理学家、方法论专家、统计学家、消费者代表、行业代表、系统评审专家、资助机构专家组成员、监管专家、作者、期刊编辑、同行评审专家以及解决诚信问题的顾问。德尔菲调查的回复率为 86.7%(26/30 位利益相关者)。最初的长清单中共有 111 项声明(73 项由利益相关者提供,46 项由系统综述产生,8 项同时得到两者的支持),另有 8 项声明是在达成共识的过程中提供的。通过达成共识,最终合并了 81 项声明(49 项由利益相关者提供,41 项由系统综述生成,9 项由利益相关者和系统综述共同支持)。这套声明涵盖了整个 RCT 生命周期,包括一般方面(n = 6)、设计和批准(n = 11)、实施和监测(n = 19)、报告方案和研究结果(n = 20)、出版后关注(n = 12)以及未来研究和发展(n = 13)。多方利益相关者共识声明的实施有望提高 RCT 的完整性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
32
审稿时长
45 weeks
期刊最新文献
Evaluating the effectiveness and adverse effects of oral versus transdermal estradiol for endometrial preparation in frozen-thawed embryo transfer: a randomized controlled trial The effect of vitamin D on the hormonal profile of women with polycystic ovarian syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis Semen in the time of COVID-19: a narrative review of current evidence and implications for fertility and reproductive health From uncertain to certain—how to proceed with variants of uncertain significance The efficacy of luteal phase support in women with polycystic ovary syndrome following assisted reproductive technology: a systematic review
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1