Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Professional Medical Writer Assistance in Oncology Clinical Trials.
Kouzy, Ramez; Abi Jaoude, Joseph; Mainwaring, Walker; Lin, Timothy A; Miller, Austin B; Jethanandani, Amit; Espinoza, Andres F; Verma, Vivek; Fuller, Clifton D; Minsky, Bruce D; Rödel, Claus; Taniguchi, Cullen M; Ludmir, Ethan B.
Afiliação
  • Kouzy R; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
  • Abi Jaoude J; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
  • Mainwaring W; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA.
  • Lin TA; The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
  • Miller AB; The University of Texas Health Science Center McGovern Medical School, Houston, Texas, USA.
  • Jethanandani A; The University of Tennessee Health Science Center College of Medicine, Memphis, Tennessee, USA.
  • Espinoza AF; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA.
  • Verma V; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
  • Fuller CD; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
  • Minsky BD; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
  • Rödel C; University of Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany.
  • Taniguchi CM; German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany.
  • Ludmir EB; German Cancer Consortium, Frankfurt, Germany.
Oncologist ; 25(11): e1812-e1815, 2020 11.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32885898
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

The use of professional medical writers (PMWs) has been historically low, but contemporary data regarding PMW usage are scarce. In this study, we sought to quantify PMW use in oncologic phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS:

We performed a database query through ClinicalTrials.gov to identify cancer-specific phase III RCTs; we then identified whether a PMW was involved in writing the associated trial manuscript reporting primary endpoint results.

RESULTS:

Two-hundred sixty trials of 600 (43.3%) used a PMW. Industry-funded trials used PMWs more often than nonindustry trials (54.9% vs. 3.0%, p < .001). Increased PMW usage was further noted among trials meeting their primary endpoint (53.4% vs. 32.9%, p < .001) and trials that led to subsequent Food and Drug Administration approval (63.1% vs. 36.3%, p < .001). By treatment interventions, PMW use was highest among systemic therapy trials (50.2%). Lastly, the use of PMWs increased significantly over time (odds ratio 1.11/year, p = .001).

CONCLUSION:

PMW use rates are high among industry-funded trials. We urge continued and increased transparency in reporting the funding and use of PMWs.
Assuntos

Texto completo: 1 Bases de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Escrita Médica / Neoplasias Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Etiology_studies / Prognostic_studies Limite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Oncologist Assunto da revista: NEOPLASIAS Ano de publicação: 2020 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Estados Unidos

Texto completo: 1 Bases de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Escrita Médica / Neoplasias Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Etiology_studies / Prognostic_studies Limite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Oncologist Assunto da revista: NEOPLASIAS Ano de publicação: 2020 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Estados Unidos