'Being disabled' as an exclusion criterion for clinical trials: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: People with disabilities (PWDs) are often excluded from biomedical research, but comprehensive data regarding their participation in clinical trials are not available. The objective of this study was to assess the rates of exclusion of PWDs from recent medical scientific research. METHODS: The protocol of the study was designed according to PRISMA-ScR (PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. All completed interventional clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov between 2010 and 2020 regarding the 10 leading causes of global disability-adjusted life-years according to the Global Burden of Disease Study were analysed. An exclusion criterion from the study was considered explicit if it could be associated with one of the following seven categories: disability, physical impairment, cognitive impairment, behavioural or psychiatric disorders, language and communication impairment, sensory impairment. Comorbidities not more clearly defined and researcher discretion regarding exclusion of study participants were considered to be 'implicit exclusion criteria'. We assessed the appropriateness of explicit exclusion criteria in relation to the primary objectives of the trials and labelled them as 'absolute', 'relative' or 'questionable'. RESULTS: The total number of trials analysed was 2710; 170 were paediatric trials (6.3%), 2374 were adult trials (87.6%) and 166 were trials including subjects of all ages (6.1%). Explicit exclusion criteria were found in 958 trials (35.3%). The disability category most frequently excluded was behavioural or psychiatric disorders, present in 588 trials (61.4%). In only 3% and 1% of the trials, the exclusion criteria were considered either 'absolute' or 'questionable', while in 96% the exclusion criteria were judged as 'relative'. Implicit exclusion criteria were present in 1205 trials (44.5%). CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the high rate of exclusion of PWDs from biomedical research and the widespread use of ill-defined exclusion criteria in clinical trials. It underscores the importance of more inclusive study designs so that PWDs can become active participants in research.

Evaluation of the Quality of Rehabilitation Treatment in Neurodevelopmental Disorder.

Complex disability is very difficult to manage. It usually subtends very serious clinical pictures, because it affect several body systems, or because it is associated with intellectual disability and behavioral disorders. Often affected patients are unable to communicate their basic needs. All these factors combine to make the management of these patients very complex, and those who care for them realize how important it is to find a way to detect their state and to identify their potential capabilities. Developing appropriate rehabilitation programs for these patients requires additional effort and an assessment capacity that is as objective as possible. Few scales cited in the literature are capable of evaluating these aspects in patients with complex disabilities, among them the Barthel Index (Mahoney & Barthel 1965) and the Vineland Adaptive Behavior scale II (Sparrow et al. 2005). The majority of these scales often tend to depict the data regarding the disease to a degree of severity that precludes adequate individual rehabilitation program development. There is a dire need for a more appropriate instrument, an observational grid that is capable of identifying the potential of this patient population and evaluate the effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions provided. The aim of the study is to evaluate the efficacy of rehabilitation interventions in a group of patients with IQ <32 (determined by the Vineland II scale) using an evaluation tool created ad hoc called D-Rubrics, designed with the intent to identify "micro-differences" between baseline (T0) and post-rehabilitation (T1). The goal is part of a more long term-term objective which involves developing an effective assessment tool for patients with complex disabilities. Such an assessment tool should be practical, easy to administer and useful in both clinical and research settings.