Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Best practice for analysis of shared clinical trial data.
Hollis, Sally; Fletcher, Christine; Lynn, Frances; Urban, Hans-Joerg; Branson, Janice; Burger, Hans-Ulrich; Tudur Smith, Catrin; Sydes, Matthew R; Gerlinger, Christoph.
Afiliación
  • Hollis S; AstraZeneca, Alderley Park, Cheshire, SK10 4TG, UK.
  • Fletcher C; Centre for Biostatistics, Institute of Population Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
  • Lynn F; Amgen Ltd., 240 Cambridge Science Park, Cambridge, CB4 0WD, UK.
  • Urban HJ; BioMarin, 10 Bloomsbury Way, London, WC1A 2SL, UK.
  • Branson J; Hoffman-La Roche, Grenzacherstrasse 124, 4070, Basel, Switzerland.
  • Burger HU; Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland.
  • Tudur Smith C; Hoffman-La Roche, Grenzacherstrasse 124, 4070, Basel, Switzerland.
  • Sydes MR; MRC North West Hub for Trials Methodology Research, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
  • Gerlinger C; MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials & Methodology, Aviation House, 125 Kingsway, London, WC2B 6NH, UK.
BMC Med Res Methodol ; 16 Suppl 1: 76, 2016 Jul 08.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27410240
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Greater transparency, including sharing of patient-level data for further research, is an increasingly important topic for organisations who sponsor, fund and conduct clinical trials. This is a major paradigm shift with the aim of maximising the value of patient-level data from clinical trials for the benefit of future patients and society. We consider the analysis of shared clinical trial data in three broad categories (1) reanalysis - further investigation of the efficacy and safety of the randomized intervention, (2) meta-analysis, and (3) supplemental analysis for a research question that is not directly assessing the randomized intervention.

DISCUSSION:

In order to support appropriate interpretation and limit the risk of misleading findings, analysis of shared clinical trial data should have a pre-specified analysis plan. However, it is not generally possible to limit bias and control multiplicity to the extent that is possible in the original trial design, conduct and analysis, and this should be acknowledged and taken into account when interpreting results. We highlight a number of areas where specific considerations arise in planning, conducting, interpreting and reporting analyses of shared clinical trial data. A key issue is that that these analyses essentially share many of the limitations of any post hoc analyses beyond the original specified analyses. The use of individual patient data in meta-analysis can provide increased precision and reduce bias. Supplemental analyses are subject to many of the same issues that arise in broader epidemiological analyses. Specific discussion topics are addressed within each of these areas. Increased provision of patient-level data from industry and academic-led clinical trials for secondary research can benefit future patients and society. Responsible data sharing, including transparency of the research objectives, analysis plans and of the results will support appropriate interpretation and help to address the risk of misleading results and avoid unfounded health scares.
Asunto(s)

Texto completo: 1 Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Ensayos Clínicos como Asunto / Difusión de la Información Tipo de estudio: Clinical_trials / Guideline / Systematic_reviews Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: BMC Med Res Methodol Asunto de la revista: MEDICINA Año: 2016 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Reino Unido

Texto completo: 1 Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Ensayos Clínicos como Asunto / Difusión de la Información Tipo de estudio: Clinical_trials / Guideline / Systematic_reviews Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: BMC Med Res Methodol Asunto de la revista: MEDICINA Año: 2016 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Reino Unido