Presentation of the first international research network to foster high-quality clinical trials testing non-pharmacological interventions (TRACTION network).

Clinical trials are essential for evaluating the efficacy and safety of new treatments and health interventions. However, while pharmacological trials are well-established, non-pharmacological trials face unique challenges related to their complexity and difficulties such as recruitment, retention, intervention standardisation, selection of outcome measures and blinding of clinicians, participants and data collectors. This communication paper describes the objectives, implementation steps and bylaws of the 'Trials foR heAlth Care inTerventIONs' Network (TRACTION), established by an international multiprofessional task force of experts to foster high-quality non-pharmacological research, ultimately improving patient care and healthcare outcomes.The TRACTION research network will provide information and resources through a collaborative hub for researchers, health professionals, patient research partners and stakeholders in diverse biomedical and healthcare areas, connecting people with different levels of expertise but with the same interests (eg, to evaluate the effect of non-pharmacological interventions, recruiting participants). This open network will support researchers in optimising trial design, participant recruitment, data management and analysis, and disseminating and implementing trial results.The network will also facilitate specialisation training and provide educational materials and mentoring.

Developments in the Design, Conduct, and Reporting of Child Health Trials.

To identify priority areas to improve the design, conduct, and reporting of pediatric clinical trials, the international expert network, Standards for Research (StaR) in Child Health, was assembled and published the first 6 Standards in Pediatrics in 2012. After a recent review summarizing the 247 publications by StaR Child Health authors that highlight research practices that add value and reduce research "waste," the current review assesses the progress in key child health trial methods areas: consent and recruitment, containing risk of bias, roles of data monitoring committees, appropriate sample size calculations, outcome selection and measurement, and age groups for pediatric trials. Although meaningful change has occurred within the child health research ecosystem, measurable progress is still disappointingly slow. In this context, we identify and review emerging trends that will advance the agenda of increased clinical usefulness of pediatric trials, including patient and public engagement, Bayesian statistical approaches, adaptive designs, and platform trials. We explore how implementation science approaches could be applied to effect measurable improvements in the design, conducted, and reporting of child health research.

[Registration and reporting of results from clinical trials in Nordic countries - there is scope for improvement]. / Registrering och rapportering av kliniska studier kan bli bättre.

Reporting of results from clinical trials is necessary for reliable evidence in clinical decision making, and is mandated as an ethical and regulatory obligation. We have recently followed up reporting of clinical trials in the Nordic countries sponsored by medical universities and university hospitals. Of 2113 studies registered on the EU Clinical Trials Registry (EUCTR) or on clinicaltrials.gov and completed 2016-2019, about half reported results in any form after 24 months and more than one in five did not report results at all. For trials registered on clinicaltrials.gov, about half were prospectively registered. These results are consistent with results from follow-up of registered trials in other contexts and demonstrate that there is scope for improvement in registration and reporting of clinical trials. We urge public sector trial sponsors to enhance their support to trialists in order to ensure that trials are reported in a timely manner.

Key issues in the STRICTA checklist. / 对STRICTAæ¸ å•å‡ ä¸ªå ³é”®é—®é¢˜çš„æ¢³ç†.

The STRICTA checklist is the guideline for reporting clinical trials undertaken using acupuncture intervention. As an extension of the CONSORT checklist, the STRICTA checklist facilitates the reporting quality of acupuncture clinical trials. The clinical research paradigm changes along with the development of science and technology. It is crucial to ensure whether or not the existing STRICTA checklist guides the reporting clinical trials of acupuncture now and in the future as well. This paper introduces the development and the updating procedure of the STRICTA checklist, analyzes the characteristics of utility and the limitation, and proposes several suggestions on the difficulties and challenges encountered in the implementation of the STRICTA checklist of current version so as to advance the further update and improvement.

Methodological Quality of Clinical Trials in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis: A Systematic Review.

Background: More than 200 clinical trials have been performed worldwide in ALS so far, but no agents with substantial efficacy on disease progression have been found. Objective: To describe the methodological quality of all clinical trials performed in ALS and published before December 31, 2022. Methods: We conducted a systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses. Results: 213 trials were included. 47.4% manuscripts described preclinical study evaluation, with a positive effect in all. 67.6% of trials were conducted with a parallel-arm design, while 12.7% were cross-over studies; 77% were randomized, while in 5.6% historical-controls were used for comparison. 70% of trials were double blind. Participant inclusion allowed forced vital capacity (or corresponding slow vital capacity)<50% in 15% cases, between 55-65% in 21.6%, between 70-80% in 14.1% reports, and 49.3% of the evaluated manuscripts did not provide a minimum value for respiratory capacity at inclusion. Disease duration was < 6-months in 6 studies, 7-36 months in 68, 37-60 months in 24, 8 trials requested more than 1-month of disease duration, while in 107 reports a disease duration was not described. Dropout rate was ≥20% in 30.5% trials, while it was not reported for 8.5%. Conclusion: The methodological quality of the included studies was highly variable. Major issues to be addressed in future ALS clinical trials include: the requirement for standard animal toxicology and phase I studies, the resource-intensive nature of phase II-III studies, adequate study methodology and design, a good results reporting.

Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement in the Development of a Platform Clinical Trial for Parkinson's Disease: An Evaluation Protocol.

Background: Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in the design of trials is important, as participant experience critically impacts delivery. The Edmond J Safra Accelerating Clinical Trials in PD (EJS ACT-PD) initiative is a UK consortium designing a platform trial for disease modifying therapies in PD. Objective: The integration of PPIE in all aspects of trial design and its evaluation throughout the project. Methods: PwP and care partners were recruited to a PPIE working group (WG) via UK Parkinson's charities, investigator patient groups and participants of a Delphi study on trial design. They are supported by charity representatives, trial delivery experts, researchers and core project team members. PPIE is fully embedded within the consortium's five other WGs and steering group. The group's terms of reference, processes for effective working and PPIE evaluation were co-developed with PPIE contributors. Results: 11 PwP and 4 care partners have supported the PPIE WG and contributed to the development of processes for effective working. A mixed methods research-in-action study is ongoing to evaluate PPIE within the consortium. This includes the Patient Engagement in Research Scale -a quantitative PPIE quality measure; semi-structured interviews -identifying areas for improvement and overall impressions of involvement; process fidelity- recording adherence; project documentation review - identifying impact of PPIE on project outputs. Conclusions: We provide a practical example of PPIE in complex projects. Evaluating feasibility, experiences and impact of PPIE involvement in EJS ACT-PD will inform similar programs on effective strategies. This will help enable future patient-centered research.

Assessing readiness to use electronic health record data for outcome ascertainment in clinical trials - A case study.

BACKGROUND: Variable data quality poses a challenge to using electronic health record (EHR) data to ascertain acute clinical outcomes in multi-site clinical trials. Differing EHR platforms and data comprehensiveness across clinical trial sites, especially if patients received care outside of the clinical site's network, can also affect validity of results. Overcoming these challenges requires a structured approach. METHODS: We propose a framework and create a checklist to assess the readiness of clinical sites to contribute EHR data to a clinical trial for the purpose of outcome ascertainment, based on our experience with the Strategies to Reduce Injuries and Develop Confidence in Elders (STRIDE) study, which enrolled 5451 participants in 86 primary care practices across 10 healthcare systems (sites). RESULTS: The site readiness checklist includes assessment of the infrastructure (i.e., size and structure of the site's healthcare system or clinical network), data procurement (i.e., quality of the data), and cost of obtaining study data. The checklist emphasizes the importance of understanding how data are captured and integrated across a site's catchment area and having a protocol in place for data procurement to ensure consistent and uniform extraction across each site. CONCLUSIONS: We suggest rigorous, prospective vetting of the data quality and infrastructure of each clinical site before launching a multi-site trial dependent on EHR data. The proposed checklist serves as a guiding tool to help investigators ensure robust and unbiased data capture for their clinical trials. ORIGINAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02475850.

Developing an international consensus Reporting guideline for intervention Fidelity in Non-Drug, non-surgical trials: The ReFiND protocol.

BACKGROUND: Inadequate reporting of fidelity to interventions in trials limits the transparency and interpretation of trial findings. Despite this, most trials of non-drug, non-surgical interventions lack comprehensive reporting of fidelity. If fidelity is poorly reported, it is unclear which intervention components were tested or implemented within the trial, which also hinders research reproducibility. This protocol describes the development process of a reporting guideline for fidelity of non-drug, non-surgical interventions (ReFiND) in the context of trials. METHODS: The ReFiND guideline will be developed in six stages. Stage one: a guideline development group has been formed to oversee the guideline methodology. Stage two: a scoping review will be conducted to identify and summarize existing guidance documents on the fidelity of non-drug, non-surgical interventions. Stage three: a Delphi study will be conducted to reach consensus on reporting items. Stage four: a consensus meeting will be held to consolidate the reporting items and discuss the wording and structure of the guideline. Stage five: a guidance statement, an elaboration and explanation document, and a reporting checklist will be developed. Stage six: different strategies will be used to disseminate and implement the ReFiND guideline. DISCUSSION: The ReFiND guideline will provide a set of items developed through international consensus to improve the reporting of intervention fidelity in trials of non-drug, non-surgical interventions. This reporting guideline will enhance transparency and reproducibility in future non-drug, non-surgical intervention research.

"Reality is frequently inaccurate" A case study examining the whens and whys of post-live database changes in a UK clinical trials unit *Douglas Adams.

INTRODUCTION: Accurately estimating the costs of clinical trials is challenging. There is currently no reference class data to allow researchers to understand the potential costs associated with database change management in clinical trials. METHODS: We used a case-based approach, summarising post-live changes in eleven clinical trial databases managed by Sheffield Clinical Trials Research Unit. We reviewed the database specifications for each trial and summarised the number of changes, change type, change category, and timing of changes. We pooled our experiences and made observations in relation to key themes. RESULTS: Median total number of changes across the eleven trials was 71 (range 40-155) and median number of changes per study week was 0.48 (range 0.32-1.34). The most common change type was modification (median 39, range 20-90), followed by additions (median 32, range 18-55), then deletions (median 7, range 1-12). In our sample, changes were more common in the first half of the trial's lifespan, regardless of its overall duration. Trials which saw continuous changes seemed more likely to be external pilots or trials in areas where the trial team was either less experienced overall or within the particular therapeutic area. CONCLUSIONS: Researchers should plan trials with the expectation that clinical trial databases will require changes within the life of the trial, particularly in the early stages or with a less experienced trial team. More research is required to understand potential differences between clinical trial units and database types.

Standardizing data collection in adjuvant colon cancer trials: A consensus project from the IDEA and ACCENT international consortia and national experts.

BACKGROUND: Despite contributions provided by the recent clinical trials, several issues and challenges still remain unsolved in adjuvant colon cancer (CC). Hence, further studies should be planned to better refine risk assessment as well as to establish the optimal treatment strategy in the adjuvant setting. However, it is necessary to request adequate, contemporary and relevant variables and report them homogeneously in order to bring maximal information when analyzing their prognostic value. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The project was devised to gain a consensus from experts engaged in the planning, accrual and analyses of stage II and III CC clinical trials, to identify mandatory and recommended baseline variables in order to i) harmonize future data collection worldwide in clinical trials dedicated to adjuvant treatment of CC; ii) propose guidance for Case Report Forms to be used for clinical trials in this setting. A total of 72 questions related to variables that should be reported and how to report them in adjuvant clinical trials were approved and then voted to reach a final consensus from panelists. RESULTS: Data items on patient-related factors, histopathological features, molecular profile, circulating biomarkers and blood analyses were analyzed and discussed by the whole expert panel. For each item, we report data supporting the acquired consensus and the relevant issues that were discussed. Nineteen items were deemed to be mandatory for resected stage III patients and 24 for resected stage II disease. In addition, 9 and 4 items were judged as recommended for stage III and II, respectively. CONCLUSION: In our opinion, these 28 variables should be used and uniformly reported in more comprehensive CRFs as research groups design future clinical trials in the field of adjuvant colon cancer.

Rosacea Core Domain Set for Clinical Trials and Practice: A Consensus Statement.

Importance: Inconsistent reporting of outcomes in clinical trials of rosacea is impeding and likely preventing accurate data pooling and meta-analyses. There is a need for standardization of outcomes assessed during intervention trials of rosacea. Objective: To develop a rosacea core outcome set (COS) based on key domains that are globally relevant and applicable to all demographic groups to be used as a minimum list of outcomes for reporting by rosacea clinical trials, and when appropriate, in clinical practice. Evidence Review: A systematic literature review of rosacea clinical trials was conducted. Discrete outcomes were extracted and augmented through discussions and focus groups with key stakeholders. The initial list of 192 outcomes was refined to identify 50 unique outcomes that were rated through the Delphi process Round 1 by 88 panelists (63 physicians from 17 countries and 25 patients with rosacea in the US) on 9-point Likert scale. Based on feedback, an additional 11 outcomes were added in Round 2. Outcomes deemed to be critical for inclusion (rated 7-9 by ≥70% of both groups) were discussed in consensus meetings. The outcomes deemed to be most important for inclusion by at least 85% of the participants were incorporated into the final core domain set. Findings: The Delphi process and consensus-building meetings identified a final core set of 8 domains for rosacea clinical trials: ocular signs and symptoms; skin signs of disease; skin symptoms; overall severity; patient satisfaction; quality of life; degree of improvement; and presence and severity of treatment-related adverse events. Recommendations were also made for application in the clinical setting. Conclusions and Relevance: This core domain set for rosacea research is now available; its adoption by researchers may improve the usefulness of future trials of rosacea therapies by enabling meta-analyses and other comparisons across studies. This core domain set may also be useful in clinical practice.

Similarities and Differences Between Pragmatic Trials and Hybrid Effectiveness-Implementation Trials.

Pragmatism in clinical trials is focused on increasing the generalizability of research findings for routine clinical care settings. Hybridism in clinical trials (i.e., assessing both clinical effectiveness and implementation success) is focused on speeding up the process by which evidence-based practices are developed and adopted into routine clinical care. Even though pragmatic trial methodologies and implementation science evolved from very different disciplines, Pragmatic Trials and Hybrid Effectiveness-Implementation Trials share many similar design features. In fact, these types of trials can easily be conflated, creating the potential for investigators to mislabel their trial type or mistakenly use the wrong trial type to answer their research question. Blurred boundaries between trial types can hamper the evaluation of grant applications, the scientific interpretation of findings, and policy-making. Acknowledging that most trials are not pure Pragmatic Trials nor pure Hybrid Effectiveness-Implementation Trials, there are key differences in these trial types and they answer very different research questions. The purpose of this paper is to clarify the similarities and differences of these trial types for funders, researchers, and policy-makers. In addition, recommendations are offered to help investigators choose, label, and operationalize the most appropriate trial type to answer their research question. These recommendations complement existing reporting guidelines for clinical effectiveness trials (TIDieR) and implementation trials (StaRI).

Assessment of Rehabilitation Journal Requirements for the Use of Reporting Guidelines and Clinical Trial Registration.

OBJECTIVE: To assess reporting guideline and clinical trial registration requirements in rehabilitation journals. DESIGN: We examined rehabilitation journals with 5-year impact factors exceeding 1.00 from the 2021 Scopus CiteScore tool, alongside the 28 journals included in the 2014 rehabilitation and disability quality improvement initiative. Journals outside the traditional rehabilitation scope were excluded. SETTING: A publicly-funded academic health center in the United States. PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS: N/A. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The proportion of journals requiring/recommending reporting guideline use and clinical trial registration. RESULTS: Over 90% (57/63) of journals required/recommended clinical trial reporting guidelines, while 68% (39/57) specified guideline requirements for systematic review/meta-analysis protocols. The 2014 collaborative initiative journals demonstrated higher rates of requiring/recommending reporting guidelines for clinical trials (24/26; 92.3%), systematic reviews/meta-analyses (23/26; 88.5%), observational studies in epidemiology (22/25; 88%), and diagnostic accuracy studies (20/24; 83.3%). Conversely, the 2021 Scopus CiteScore journals displayed higher rates for the remaining study designs. Overall, 52/63 (82.5%) journals required/recommended trial registration. Trial registration policies were comparable, with a slight advantage favoring the 2021 Scopus CiteScore journals. CONCLUSION: Rehabilitation journals variably promoted reporting guideline use and clinical trial registration. Common study designs like clinical trials, observational studies in epidemiology, and diagnostic accuracy studies demonstrated robust requirement/recommendation rates, while less common designs like economic evaluations and animal research had suboptimal rates. Journals can enhance reporting guideline use and trial registration by directing authors to the EQUATOR Network, requiring adherence to registration and reporting standards, and clarifying language in author instructions.