Protocol-writing support conferences for investigator-initiated clinical trials

IF 1.4 Q4 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL Open Access Journal of Clinical Trials Pub Date : 2016-04-12 DOI:10.2147/OAJCT.S97792
Masaya Goto, Y. Muragaki, A. Aruga
{"title":"Protocol-writing support conferences for investigator-initiated clinical trials","authors":"Masaya Goto, Y. Muragaki, A. Aruga","doi":"10.2147/OAJCT.S97792","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":": In investigator-initiated clinical trials, protocols with inappropriate methods might cause bias. However, insufficient data are available to determine which items are important or difficult to discuss in protocol development. We recorded protocol-writing support conferences to determine what items methodologists and investigators discussed. We obtained approval from all applicants to attend our Intelligent Clinical Research and Innovation Center writing support conferences, recorded all the discussions, characterized them, and sorted the items iteratively. In 1 year, we had 18 conferences: nine early protocol conferences and nine rejected protocol conferences. The latter were rejected by the institutional review board, which requested consultation. The most discussed item was outcomes, accounting for ∼ 20% of the total discussion time. In three trials, the main problem was multiple primary outcomes. The second most discussed item was control. Early protocol conferences had more non-preliminary proposal items than rejected ones ( P , 0.001). This study showed important items (especially outcomes and control) for investigators to write protocols. Early protocol-writing conferences helped investigators find questionable items.","PeriodicalId":19500,"journal":{"name":"Open Access Journal of Clinical Trials","volume":"8 1","pages":"7-12"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2016-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2147/OAJCT.S97792","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Access Journal of Clinical Trials","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/OAJCT.S97792","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

: In investigator-initiated clinical trials, protocols with inappropriate methods might cause bias. However, insufficient data are available to determine which items are important or difficult to discuss in protocol development. We recorded protocol-writing support conferences to determine what items methodologists and investigators discussed. We obtained approval from all applicants to attend our Intelligent Clinical Research and Innovation Center writing support conferences, recorded all the discussions, characterized them, and sorted the items iteratively. In 1 year, we had 18 conferences: nine early protocol conferences and nine rejected protocol conferences. The latter were rejected by the institutional review board, which requested consultation. The most discussed item was outcomes, accounting for ∼ 20% of the total discussion time. In three trials, the main problem was multiple primary outcomes. The second most discussed item was control. Early protocol conferences had more non-preliminary proposal items than rejected ones ( P , 0.001). This study showed important items (especially outcomes and control) for investigators to write protocols. Early protocol-writing conferences helped investigators find questionable items.
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
为研究者发起的临床试验编写协议支持会议
在研究者发起的临床试验中,采用不适当方法的方案可能会导致偏倚。然而,没有足够的数据来确定哪些项目在协议制定中是重要的或难以讨论的。我们记录了协议编写支持会议,以确定方法学家和研究者讨论了哪些项目。我们获得了所有申请人参加我们的智能临床研究与创新中心写作支持会议的批准,记录了所有的讨论,并对其进行了描述,并对项目进行了迭代整理。在一年中,我们召开了18次会议:9次早期协议会议和9次拒绝协议会议。后者被机构审查委员会拒绝,该委员会要求进行协商。讨论最多的话题是结果,占总讨论时间的20%。在三个试验中,主要问题是多重主要结局。第二个讨论最多的项目是控制。早期协议会议的非初步提案项目多于被拒绝的项目(P, 0.001)。本研究显示了研究者撰写方案的重要项目(特别是结果和控制)。早期的协议编写会议帮助研究人员发现有问题的项目。
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
Open Access Journal of Clinical Trials
Open Access Journal of Clinical Trials MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
2
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
A Multidomain Intervention Program for Older People with Dementia: A Pilot Study Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Insulin Fast Dissolving Films versus Control Group for Anosmic Patients for Improving Their Health and Social Qualities of Life Treatment of Oropharyngeal Symptoms: A Prospective, Single-Dose, Placebo-Controlled, Randomized Clinical Trial Post-Trial Considerations for an Early Phase Optogenetic Trial in the Human Brain Reviewing Treatments for Cocaine Consume Problems: The Gabapentinoid Alternative
×
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