日本临床研究中的抽象与具体风险识别:基于风险的方法中降低风险活动效果的随机和前瞻性试点研究。

IF 2 4区 医学 Q4 MEDICAL INFORMATICS Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science Pub Date : 2024-10-28 DOI:10.1007/s43441-024-00702-w
Hidenobu Kondo, Shih-Wei Chiu, Yukikazu Hayashi, Naoto Takahashi, Takuhiro Yamaguchi
{"title":"日本临床研究中的抽象与具体风险识别:基于风险的方法中降低风险活动效果的随机和前瞻性试点研究。","authors":"Hidenobu Kondo, Shih-Wei Chiu, Yukikazu Hayashi, Naoto Takahashi, Takuhiro Yamaguchi","doi":"10.1007/s43441-024-00702-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The risk-based approach (RBA) of clinical trial was first introduced in 2011-2012. RBA necessitates implementing risk reduction activities that are proportionate to risk in order to reduce avoidable quality issues. However, there is no consistent methodology or research for identifying and evaluating risks and planning risk reduction activities. We aimed to evaluate risk reduction activities and their effects by using two risk identification and evaluation methods.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Among the risk identification and evaluation methods, we selected one method with the lowest number of categories for identifying risks [risk assessment form (RAF)] and one with the highest number [risk assessment tool (RAT)]. Each method was used to identify and evaluate risks in and plan risk reduction activities for the research on ponatinib blood concentration and treatment outcome in patients with chronic phase chronic myelogenous leukemia. RAF and RAT can identify risk using abstract questions and a list of concrete risks, respectively. The sites were randomized into two groups to implement planned risk reduction activities using RAF and RAT and to compare the mean of errors and protocol deviation per subject visit between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean of errors per subject visit and the mean of protocol deviation per subject visit were lower in the RAF group than in the RAT group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our study indicates that risk reductions can be successfully implemented by using a method to identify and evaluate risks in a small number of abstract categories that are critical to quality of clinical research.</p>","PeriodicalId":23084,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Abstract Versus Concrete Risk Identification in Clinical Research in Japan: Randomized and Prospective Pilot Research on the Effect of Risk Reduction Activities in a Risk-Based Approach.\",\"authors\":\"Hidenobu Kondo, Shih-Wei Chiu, Yukikazu Hayashi, Naoto Takahashi, Takuhiro Yamaguchi\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s43441-024-00702-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The risk-based approach (RBA) of clinical trial was first introduced in 2011-2012. RBA necessitates implementing risk reduction activities that are proportionate to risk in order to reduce avoidable quality issues. However, there is no consistent methodology or research for identifying and evaluating risks and planning risk reduction activities. We aimed to evaluate risk reduction activities and their effects by using two risk identification and evaluation methods.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Among the risk identification and evaluation methods, we selected one method with the lowest number of categories for identifying risks [risk assessment form (RAF)] and one with the highest number [risk assessment tool (RAT)]. Each method was used to identify and evaluate risks in and plan risk reduction activities for the research on ponatinib blood concentration and treatment outcome in patients with chronic phase chronic myelogenous leukemia. RAF and RAT can identify risk using abstract questions and a list of concrete risks, respectively. The sites were randomized into two groups to implement planned risk reduction activities using RAF and RAT and to compare the mean of errors and protocol deviation per subject visit between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean of errors per subject visit and the mean of protocol deviation per subject visit were lower in the RAF group than in the RAT group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our study indicates that risk reductions can be successfully implemented by using a method to identify and evaluate risks in a small number of abstract categories that are critical to quality of clinical research.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23084,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43441-024-00702-w\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"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/s43441-024-00702-w","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICAL INFORMATICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:基于风险的临床试验方法(RBA)于 2011-2012 年首次引入。基于风险的方法要求实施与风险相称的降低风险活动,以减少可避免的质量问题。然而,目前还没有一致的方法或研究来识别和评估风险并规划风险降低活动。我们旨在通过两种风险识别和评估方法来评估风险降低活动及其效果:在风险识别和评估方法中,我们选择了一种风险识别类别最少的方法[风险评估表(RAF)]和一种类别最多的方法[风险评估工具(RAT)]。这两种方法分别用于识别和评估慢性期慢性髓性白血病患者的泊纳替尼血药浓度和治疗效果研究中的风险,并规划风险降低活动。RAF 和 RAT 可分别使用抽象问题和具体风险清单来识别风险。研究机构被随机分为两组,利用 RAF 和 RAT 实施有计划的降低风险活动,并比较两组受试者每次就诊的错误平均值和方案偏差:结果:RAF 组受试者每次就诊的误差平均值和方案偏差平均值均低于 RAT 组:我们的研究表明,通过使用一种方法来识别和评估对临床研究质量至关重要的少数抽象类别的风险,可以成功降低风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Abstract Versus Concrete Risk Identification in Clinical Research in Japan: Randomized and Prospective Pilot Research on the Effect of Risk Reduction Activities in a Risk-Based Approach.

Background: The risk-based approach (RBA) of clinical trial was first introduced in 2011-2012. RBA necessitates implementing risk reduction activities that are proportionate to risk in order to reduce avoidable quality issues. However, there is no consistent methodology or research for identifying and evaluating risks and planning risk reduction activities. We aimed to evaluate risk reduction activities and their effects by using two risk identification and evaluation methods.

Methods: Among the risk identification and evaluation methods, we selected one method with the lowest number of categories for identifying risks [risk assessment form (RAF)] and one with the highest number [risk assessment tool (RAT)]. Each method was used to identify and evaluate risks in and plan risk reduction activities for the research on ponatinib blood concentration and treatment outcome in patients with chronic phase chronic myelogenous leukemia. RAF and RAT can identify risk using abstract questions and a list of concrete risks, respectively. The sites were randomized into two groups to implement planned risk reduction activities using RAF and RAT and to compare the mean of errors and protocol deviation per subject visit between the two groups.

Results: The mean of errors per subject visit and the mean of protocol deviation per subject visit were lower in the RAF group than in the RAT group.

Conclusions: Our study indicates that risk reductions can be successfully implemented by using a method to identify and evaluate risks in a small number of abstract categories that are critical to quality of clinical research.

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
Efficiency of eSource Direct Data Capture in Investigator-Initiated Clinical Trials in Oncology. Mutagenic Azido Impurities in Drug Substances: A Perspective. Draft Guideline for Industry to Manage Drug Shortages in Japan. Unleashing the Power of Reliance for Post-Approval Changes: A Journey with 48 National Regulatory Authorities. A Comprehensive Framework for Evaluating the Value Created by Real-World Evidence for Diverse Stakeholders: The Case for Coordinated Registry Networks.
×
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