中央统计监控能否提高数据质量?对 159 项临床试验中 111 个研究点的分析。

IF 2 4区 医学 Q4 MEDICAL INFORMATICS Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science Pub Date : 2024-05-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-09 DOI:10.1007/s43441-024-00613-w
Sylviane de Viron, Laura Trotta, William Steijn, Steve Young, Marc Buyse
{"title":"中央统计监控能否提高数据质量?对 159 项临床试验中 111 个研究点的分析。","authors":"Sylviane de Viron, Laura Trotta, William Steijn, Steve Young, Marc Buyse","doi":"10.1007/s43441-024-00613-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Central monitoring aims at improving the quality of clinical research by pro-actively identifying risks and remediating emerging issues in the conduct of a clinical trial that may have an adverse impact on patient safety and/or the reliability of trial results. This paper, focusing on statistical data monitoring (SDM), is the second of a series that attempts to quantify the impact of central monitoring in clinical trials.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>Quality improvement was assessed in studies using SDM from a single large central monitoring platform. The analysis focused on a total of 1111 sites that were identified as at-risk by the SDM tests and for which the study teams conducted a follow-up investigation. These sites were taken from 159 studies conducted by 23 different clinical development organizations (including both sponsor companies and contract research organizations). Two quality improvement metrics were assessed for each selected site, one based on a site data inconsistency score (DIS, overall -log<sub>10</sub> P-value of the site compared with all other sites) and the other based on the observed metric value associated with each risk signal.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The SDM quality metrics showed improvement in 83% (95% CI, 80-85%) of the sites across therapeutic areas and study phases (primarily phases 2 and 3). In contrast, only 56% (95% CI, 41-70%) of sites showed improvement in 2 historical studies that did not use SDM during study conduct.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The results of this analysis provide clear quantitative evidence supporting the hypothesis that the use of SDM in central monitoring is leading to improved quality in clinical trial conduct and associated data across participating sites.</p>","PeriodicalId":23084,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11043176/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does Central Statistical Monitoring Improve Data Quality? An Analysis of 1,111 Sites in 159 Clinical Trials.\",\"authors\":\"Sylviane de Viron, Laura Trotta, William Steijn, Steve Young, Marc Buyse\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s43441-024-00613-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Central monitoring aims at improving the quality of clinical research by pro-actively identifying risks and remediating emerging issues in the conduct of a clinical trial that may have an adverse impact on patient safety and/or the reliability of trial results. This paper, focusing on statistical data monitoring (SDM), is the second of a series that attempts to quantify the impact of central monitoring in clinical trials.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>Quality improvement was assessed in studies using SDM from a single large central monitoring platform. The analysis focused on a total of 1111 sites that were identified as at-risk by the SDM tests and for which the study teams conducted a follow-up investigation. These sites were taken from 159 studies conducted by 23 different clinical development organizations (including both sponsor companies and contract research organizations). Two quality improvement metrics were assessed for each selected site, one based on a site data inconsistency score (DIS, overall -log<sub>10</sub> P-value of the site compared with all other sites) and the other based on the observed metric value associated with each risk signal.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The SDM quality metrics showed improvement in 83% (95% CI, 80-85%) of the sites across therapeutic areas and study phases (primarily phases 2 and 3). In contrast, only 56% (95% CI, 41-70%) of sites showed improvement in 2 historical studies that did not use SDM during study conduct.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The results of this analysis provide clear quantitative evidence supporting the hypothesis that the use of SDM in central monitoring is leading to improved quality in clinical trial conduct and associated data across participating sites.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23084,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11043176/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43441-024-00613-w\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/2/9 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL INFORMATICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43441-024-00613-w","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICAL INFORMATICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:中央监控旨在提高临床研究的质量,方法是主动识别临床试验过程中可能对患者安全和/或试验结果可靠性产生不利影响的风险,并对新出现的问题进行补救。本文以统计数据监控(SDM)为重点,是试图量化中央监控对临床试验影响的系列文章的第二篇:材料和方法:通过一个大型中央监控平台对使用 SDM 的研究进行了质量改进评估。分析的重点是被 SDM 检测确定为有风险的 1111 个研究机构,研究团队对这些机构进行了后续调查。这些研究机构来自 23 家不同的临床开发机构(包括赞助公司和合同研究组织)开展的 159 项研究。对每个选定研究机构的两个质量改进指标进行了评估,一个是基于研究机构数据不一致性评分(DIS,与所有其他研究机构相比,该研究机构的总体-log10 P值),另一个是基于与每个风险信号相关的观察指标值:在不同治疗领域和研究阶段(主要是第 2 和第 3 阶段),83%(95% CI,80%-85%)的研究机构的 SDM 质量指标有所改善。相比之下,在 2 项历史研究中,只有 56%(95% CI,41-70%)的研究机构在质量指标方面有所改善,而这些研究机构在研究过程中并未使用 SDM:本分析结果提供了明确的定量证据,支持在中央监控中使用 SDM 可提高参与研究机构的临床试验实施质量和相关数据质量的假设。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Does Central Statistical Monitoring Improve Data Quality? An Analysis of 1,111 Sites in 159 Clinical Trials.

Background: Central monitoring aims at improving the quality of clinical research by pro-actively identifying risks and remediating emerging issues in the conduct of a clinical trial that may have an adverse impact on patient safety and/or the reliability of trial results. This paper, focusing on statistical data monitoring (SDM), is the second of a series that attempts to quantify the impact of central monitoring in clinical trials.

Material and methods: Quality improvement was assessed in studies using SDM from a single large central monitoring platform. The analysis focused on a total of 1111 sites that were identified as at-risk by the SDM tests and for which the study teams conducted a follow-up investigation. These sites were taken from 159 studies conducted by 23 different clinical development organizations (including both sponsor companies and contract research organizations). Two quality improvement metrics were assessed for each selected site, one based on a site data inconsistency score (DIS, overall -log10 P-value of the site compared with all other sites) and the other based on the observed metric value associated with each risk signal.

Results: The SDM quality metrics showed improvement in 83% (95% CI, 80-85%) of the sites across therapeutic areas and study phases (primarily phases 2 and 3). In contrast, only 56% (95% CI, 41-70%) of sites showed improvement in 2 historical studies that did not use SDM during study conduct.

Conclusion: The results of this analysis provide clear quantitative evidence supporting the hypothesis that the use of SDM in central monitoring is leading to improved quality in clinical trial conduct and associated data across participating sites.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science
Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science MEDICAL INFORMATICS-PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
13.30%
发文量
127
期刊介绍: Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science (TIRS) is the official scientific journal of DIA that strives to advance medical product discovery, development, regulation, and use through the publication of peer-reviewed original and review articles, commentaries, and letters to the editor across the spectrum of converting biomedical science into practical solutions to advance human health. The focus areas of the journal are as follows: Biostatistics Clinical Trials Product Development and Innovation Global Perspectives Policy Regulatory Science Product Safety Special Populations
期刊最新文献
Comparison of Product Features and Clinical Trial Designs for the DTx Products with the Indication of Insomnia Authorized by Regulatory Authorities. A Framework for the Use and Likelihood of Regulatory Acceptance of Single-Arm Trials Correction: Advanced Regenerative Medicines for Rare Diseases: A Review of Industry Sponsors Investment Motivations. Latest Developments in “Adaptive Enrichment” Clinical Trial Designs in Oncology Advanced Regenerative Medicines for Rare Diseases: A Review of Industry Sponsors Investment Motivations
×
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