Guidelines for Inclusion of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Clinical Trial Protocols: The SPIRIT-PRO Extension.

Importance: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) data from clinical trials can provide valuable evidence to inform shared decision making, labeling claims, clinical guidelines, and health policy; however, the PRO content of clinical trial protocols is often suboptimal. The SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) statement was published in 2013 and aims to improve the completeness of trial protocols by providing evidence-based recommendations for the minimum set of items to be addressed, but it does not provide PRO-specific guidance. Objective: To develop international, consensus-based, PRO-specific protocol guidance (the SPIRIT-PRO Extension). Design, Setting, and Participants: The SPIRIT-PRO Extension was developed following the Enhancing Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network's methodological framework for guideline development. This included (1) a systematic review of existing PRO-specific protocol guidance to generate a list of potential PRO-specific protocol items (published in 2014); (2) refinements to the list and removal of duplicate items by the International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL) Protocol Checklist Taskforce; (3) an international stakeholder survey of clinical trial research personnel, PRO methodologists, health economists, psychometricians, patient advocates, funders, industry representatives, journal editors, policy makers, ethicists, and researchers responsible for evidence synthesis (distributed by 38 international partner organizations in October 2016); (4) an international Delphi exercise (n = 137 invited; October 2016 to February 2017); and (5) consensus meeting (n = 30 invited; May 2017). Prior to voting, consensus meeting participants were informed of the results of the Delphi exercise and given data from structured reviews evaluating the PRO protocol content of 3 defined samples of trial protocols. Results: The systematic review identified 162 PRO-specific protocol recommendations from 54 sources. The ISOQOL Taskforce (n = 21) reduced this to 56 items, which were considered by 138 international stakeholder survey participants and 99 Delphi panelists. The final wording of the SPIRIT-PRO Extension was agreed on at a consensus meeting (n = 29 participants) and reviewed by external group of experts during a consultation period. Eleven extensions and 5 elaborations to the SPIRIT 2013 checklist were recommended for inclusion in clinical trial protocols in which PROs are a primary or key secondary outcome. Extension items focused on PRO-specific issues relating to the trial rationale, objectives, eligibility criteria, concepts used to evaluate the intervention, time points for assessment, PRO instrument selection and measurement properties, data collection plan, translation to other languages, proxy completion, strategies to minimize missing data, and whether PRO data will be monitored during the study to inform clinical care. Conclusions and Relevance: The SPIRIT-PRO guidelines provide recommendations for items that should be addressed and included in clinical trial protocols in which PROs are a primary or key secondary outcome. Improved design of clinical trials including PROs could help ensure high-quality data that may inform patient-centered care.

Core competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals: consensus statement.

BACKGROUND: Scientific editors are responsible for deciding which articles to publish in their journals. However, we have not found documentation of their required knowledge, skills, and characteristics, or the existence of any formal core competencies for this role. METHODS: We describe the development of a minimum set of core competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals. RESULTS: The 14 key core competencies are divided into three major areas, and each competency has a list of associated elements or descriptions of more specific knowledge, skills, and characteristics that contribute to its fulfillment. CONCLUSIONS: We believe that these core competencies are a baseline of the knowledge, skills, and characteristics needed to perform competently the duties of a scientific editor at a biomedical journal.

SPIRIT 2013 Statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials.

The protocol of a clinical trial serves as the foundation for study planning, conduct, reporting, and appraisal. However, trial protocols and existing protocol guidelines vary greatly in content and quality. This article describes the systematic development and scope of SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) 2013, a guideline for the minimum content of a clinical trial protocol. The 33-item SPIRIT checklist applies to protocols for all clinical trials and focuses on content rather than format. The checklist recommends a full description of what is planned; it does not prescribe how to design or conduct a trial. By providing guidance for key content, the SPIRIT recommendations aim to facilitate the drafting of high-quality protocols. Adherence to SPIRIT would also enhance the transparency and completeness of trial protocols for the benefit of investigators, trial participants, patients, sponsors, funders, research ethics committees or institutional review boards, peer reviewers, journals, trial registries, policymakers, regulators, and other key stakeholders.

Sharing clinical trial data on patient level: opportunities and challenges.

In recent months one of the most controversially discussed topics among regulatory agencies, the pharmaceutical industry, journal editors, and academia has been the sharing of patient-level clinical trial data. Several projects have been started such as the European Medicines Agency´s (EMA) "proactive publication of clinical trial data", the BMJ open data campaign, or the AllTrials initiative. The executive director of the EMA, Dr. Guido Rasi, has recently announced that clinical trial data on patient level will be published from 2014 onwards (although it has since been delayed). The EMA draft policy on proactive access to clinical trial data was published at the end of June 2013 and open for public consultation until the end of September 2013. These initiatives will change the landscape of drug development and publication of medical research. They provide unprecedented opportunities for research and research synthesis, but pose new challenges for regulatory authorities, sponsors, scientific journals, and the public. Besides these general aspects, data sharing also entails intricate biostatistical questions such as problems of multiplicity. An important issue in this respect is the interpretation of multiple statistical analyses, both prospective and retrospective. Expertise in biostatistics is needed to assess the interpretation of such multiple analyses, for example, in the context of regulatory decision-making by optimizing procedural guidance and sophisticated analysis methods.

SPIRIT 2013 statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials.

The protocol of a clinical trial serves as the foundation for study planning, conduct, reporting, and appraisal. However, trial protocols and existing protocol guidelines vary greatly in content and quality. This article describes the systematic development and scope of SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) 2013, a guideline for the minimum content of a clinical trial protocol.The 33-item SPIRIT checklist applies to protocols for all clinical trials and focuses on content rather than format. The checklist recommends a full description of what is planned; it does not prescribe how to design or conduct a trial. By providing guidance for key content, the SPIRIT recommendations aim to facilitate the drafting of high-quality protocols. Adherence to SPIRIT would also enhance the transparency and completeness of trial protocols for the benefit of investigators, trial participants, patients, sponsors, funders, research ethics committees or institutional review boards, peer reviewers, journals, trial registries, policymakers, regulators, and other key stakeholders.

Surveys of current status in biomedical science grant review: funding organisations' and grant reviewers' perspectives.

BACKGROUND: The objectives of this research were (a) to describe the current status of grant review for biomedical projects and programmes from the perspectives of international funding organisations and grant reviewers, and (b) to explore funders' interest in developing uniform requirements for grant review aimed at making the processes and practices of grant review more consistent, transparent, and user friendly. METHODS: A survey to a convenience sample of 57 international public and private organisations that give grants for biomedical research was conducted. Nine participating organisations then emailed a random sample of their external reviewers an invitation to participate in a second electronic survey. RESULTS: A total of 28 of 57 (49%) organisations in 19 countries responded. Organisations reported these problems as frequent or very frequent: declined review requests (16), late reports (10), administrative burden (7), difficulty finding new reviewers (4), and reviewers not following guidelines (4). The administrative burden of the process was reported to have increased over the past 5 years. In all, 17 organisations supported the idea of uniform requirements for conducting grant review and for formatting grant proposals. A total of 258/418 (62%) reviewers responded from 22 countries. Of those, 48% (123/258) said their institutions encouraged grant review, yet only 7% (17/258) were given protected time and 74% (192/258) received no academic recognition for this. Reviewers rated these factors as extremely or very important in deciding to review proposals: 51% (131/258) desire to support external fairness, 47% (120/258) professional duty, 46% (118/258) relevance of the proposal's topic, 43% (110/258) wanting to keep up to date, 40% (104/258) desire to avoid suppression of innovation. Only 16% (42/258) reported that guidance from funders was very clear. In all, 85% (220/258) had not been trained in grant review and 64% (166/258) wanted this. CONCLUSIONS: Funders reported a growing workload of biomedical proposals that is getting harder to peer review. Just under half of grant reviewers take part for the good of science and professional development, but many report lack of academic and practical support and clear guidance. Around two-thirds of funders supported the development of uniform requirements for the format and peer review of proposals to help ease the current situation.

Sharing and reuse of individual participant data from clinical trials: principles and recommendations.

OBJECTIVES: We examined major issues associated with sharing of individual clinical trial data and developed a consensus document on providing access to individual participant data from clinical trials, using a broad interdisciplinary approach. DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a consensus-building process among the members of a multistakeholder task force, involving a wide range of experts (researchers, patient representatives, methodologists, information technology experts, and representatives from funders, infrastructures and standards development organisations). An independent facilitator supported the process using the nominal group technique. The consensus was reached in a series of three workshops held over 1 year, supported by exchange of documents and teleconferences within focused subgroups when needed. This work was set within the Horizon 2020-funded project CORBEL (Coordinated Research Infrastructures Building Enduring Life-science Services) and coordinated by the European Clinical Research Infrastructure Network. Thus, the focus was on non-commercial trials and the perspective mainly European. OUTCOME: We developed principles and practical recommendations on how to share data from clinical trials. RESULTS: The task force reached consensus on 10 principles and 50 recommendations, representing the fundamental requirements of any framework used for the sharing of clinical trials data. The document covers the following main areas: making data sharing a reality (eg, cultural change, academic incentives, funding), consent for data sharing, protection of trial participants (eg, de-identification), data standards, rights, types and management of access (eg, data request and access models), data management and repositories, discoverability, and metadata. CONCLUSIONS: The adoption of the recommendations in this document would help to promote and support data sharing and reuse among researchers, adequately inform trial participants and protect their rights, and provide effective and efficient systems for preparing, storing and accessing data. The recommendations now need to be implemented and tested in practice. Further work needs to be done to integrate these proposals with those from other geographical areas and other academic domains.