Identifying barriers and enablers to rigorous conduct and reporting of preclinical laboratory studies.

Use of rigorous study design methods and transparent reporting in publications are 2 key strategies proposed to improve the reproducibility of preclinical research. Despite promotion of these practices by funders and journals, assessments suggest uptake is low in preclinical research. Thirty preclinical scientists were interviewed to better understand barriers and enablers to rigorous design and reporting. The interview guide was informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework, which is a framework used to understand determinants of current and desired behavior. Four global themes were identified; 2 reflecting enablers and 2 reflecting barriers. We found that basic scientists are highly motivated to apply the methods of rigorous design and reporting and perceive a number of benefits to their adoption (e.g., improved quality and reliability). However, there was varied awareness of the guidelines and in implementation of these practices. Researchers also noted that these guidelines can result in disadvantages, such as increased sample sizes, expenses, time, and can require several personnel to operationalize. Most researchers expressed additional resources such as personnel and education/training would better enable the application of some methods. Using existing guidance (Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW); Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project implementation strategies), we mapped and coded our interview findings to identify potential interventions, policies, and implementation strategies to improve routine use of the guidelines by preclinical scientists. These findings will help inform specific strategies that may guide the development of programs and resources to improve experimental design and transparent reporting in preclinical research.

Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of preclinical systematic reviews.

In an effort to better utilize published evidence obtained from animal experiments, systematic reviews of preclinical studies are increasingly more common-along with the methods and tools to appraise them (e.g., SYstematic Review Center for Laboratory animal Experimentation [SYRCLE's] risk of bias tool). We performed a cross-sectional study of a sample of recent preclinical systematic reviews (2015-2018) and examined a range of epidemiological characteristics and used a 46-item checklist to assess reporting details. We identified 442 reviews published across 43 countries in 23 different disease domains that used 26 animal species. Reporting of key details to ensure transparency and reproducibility was inconsistent across reviews and within article sections. Items were most completely reported in the title, introduction, and results sections of the reviews, while least reported in the methods and discussion sections. Less than half of reviews reported that a risk of bias assessment for internal and external validity was undertaken, and none reported methods for evaluating construct validity. Our results demonstrate that a considerable number of preclinical systematic reviews investigating diverse topics have been conducted; however, their quality of reporting is inconsistent. Our study provides the justification and evidence to inform the development of guidelines for conducting and reporting preclinical systematic reviews.

Understanding potential barriers and enablers to a perioperative early phase cell therapy trial.

BACKGROUND AIMS: Early-phase cell therapy clinical trials depend on patient and physician involvement, yet barriers can impede their participation. METHODS: To optimize engagement for a planned cell therapy trial to prevent perioperative cardiac complications, the authors conducted semi-structured interviews with at-risk patients and physicians who could potentially be involved in the study. The authors used the theoretical domains framework to systematically identify potential barriers and enablers. RESULTS: Forty-one interviews were conducted to reach data saturation, and four overall potential barriers to participation (themes) were identified. Theme 1 emphasizes that patients and physicians need accessible information to better understand the benefits and risks of the novel therapy and trial procedures and to address misconceptions. Theme 2 underscores the need for clarity on whether the trial's primary purpose is safety or efficacy, as this may influence patient and physician decisions. Theme 3 recognizes the resource and logistic realities for patients (e.g., convenient follow-up appointments) and physicians (e.g., personnel to assist in trial procedures, competing priorities). Theme 4 describes the importance of social influences (e.g., physicians and family, peers/colleagues) that may affect decisions to participate and the importance of patient preferences (e.g., availability of physicians to discuss the trial, including caregivers in discussions). CONCLUSIONS: Prospectively addressing these issues may help optimize feasibility prior to conducting an expensive, resource-intensive trial.

Patient perspectives on the need for improved hearing rehabilitation: A qualitative survey study of German cochlear implant users.

Background: The electrical cochlear implant (eCI) partially restores hearing in individuals affected by profound hearing impairment (HI) or deafness. However, the limited resolution of sound frequency coding with eCIs limits hearing in daily situations such as group conversations. Current research promises future improvements in hearing restoration which may involve gene therapy and optical stimulation of the auditory nerve, using optogenetics. Prior to the potential clinical translation of these technologies, it is critical that patients are engaged in order to align future research agendas and technological advancements with their needs. Methods: Here, we performed a survey study with hearing impaired, using an eCI as a means of hearing rehabilitation. We distributed a questionnaire to 180 adult patients from the University Medical Center Göttingen's Department of Otolaryngology who were actively using an eCI for 6 months or more during the time of the survey period. Questions revolved around patients needs, and willingness to accept hypothetical risks or drawbacks associated with an optical CI (oCI). Results: Eighty-one participants responded to the questionnaire; 68% were greater than 60 years of age and 26% had bilateral eCIs. Participants expressed a need for improving the performance beyond that experienced with their current eCI. Primarily, they desired improved speech comprehension in background noise, greater ability to appreciate music, and more natural sound impression. They expressed a willingness for engaging with new technologies for improved hearing restoration. Notably, participants were least concerned about hypothetically receiving a gene therapy necessary for the oCI implant; but expressed greater reluctance to hypothetically receiving an implant that had yet to be evaluated in a human clinical trial. Conclusion: This work provides a preliminary step in engaging patients in the development of a new technology that has the potential to address the limitations of electrical hearing rehabilitation.

A systematic assessment of preclinical multilaboratory studies and a comparison to single laboratory studies.

Background: Multicentric approaches are widely used in clinical trials to assess the generalizability of findings, however, they are novel in laboratory-based experimentation. It is unclear how multilaboratory studies may differ in conduct and results from single lab studies. Here, we synthesized the characteristics of these studies and quantitatively compared their outcomes to those generated by single laboratory studies. Methods: MEDLINE and Embase were systematically searched. Screening and data extractions were completed in duplicate by independent reviewers. Multilaboratory studies investigating interventions using in vivo animal models were included. Study characteristics were extracted. Systematic searches were then performed to identify single lab studies matched by intervention and disease. Difference in standardized mean differences (DSMD) was then calculated across studies to assess differences in effect estimates based on study design (>0 indicates larger effects in single lab studies). Results: Sixteen multilaboratory studies met inclusion criteria and were matched to 100 single lab studies. The multicenter study design was applied across a diverse range of diseases, including stroke, traumatic brain injury, myocardial infarction, and diabetes. The median number of centers was four (range 2-6) and the median sample size was 111 (range 23-384) with rodents most frequently used. Multilaboratory studies adhered to practices that reduce the risk of bias significantly more often than single lab studies. Multilaboratory studies also demonstrated significantly smaller effect sizes than single lab studies (DSMD 0.72 [95% confidence interval 0.43-1]). Conclusions: Multilaboratory studies demonstrate trends that have been well recognized in clinical research (i.e. smaller treatment effects with multicentric evaluation and greater rigor in study design). This approach may provide a method to robustly assess interventions and the generalizability of findings between laboratories. Funding: uOttawa Junior Clinical Research Chair; The Ottawa Hospital Anesthesia Alternate Funds Association; Canadian Anesthesia Research Foundation; Government of Ontario Queen Elizabeth II Graduate Scholarship in Science and Technology.

Is there an unmet medical need for improved hearing restoration?

Hearing impairment, the most prevalent sensory deficit, affects more than 466 million people worldwide (WHO). We presently lack causative treatment for the most common form, sensorineural hearing impairment; hearing aids and cochlear implants (CI) remain the only means of hearing restoration. We engaged with CI users to learn about their expectations and their willingness to collaborate with health care professionals on establishing novel therapies. We summarize upcoming CI innovations, gene therapies, and regenerative approaches and evaluate the chances for clinical translation of these novel strategies. We conclude that there remains an unmet medical need for improving hearing restoration and that we are likely to witness the clinical translation of gene therapy and major CI innovations within this decade.

National Preclinical Sepsis Platform: developing a framework for accelerating innovation in Canadian sepsis research.

Despite decades of preclinical research, no experimentally derived therapies for sepsis have been successfully adopted into routine clinical practice. Factors that contribute to this crisis of translation include poor representation by preclinical models of the complex human condition of sepsis, bias in preclinical studies, as well as limitations of single-laboratory methodology. To overcome some of these shortcomings, multicentre preclinical studies-defined as a research experiment conducted in two or more research laboratories with a common protocol and analysis-are expected to maximize transparency, improve reproducibility, and enhance generalizability. The ultimate objective is to increase the efficiency and efficacy of bench-to-bedside translation for preclinical sepsis research and improve outcomes for patients with life-threatening infection. To this end, we organized the first meeting of the National Preclinical Sepsis Platform (NPSP). This multicentre preclinical  research collaboration of Canadian sepsis researchers and stakeholders was established to study the pathophysiology of sepsis and accelerate movement of promising therapeutics into early phase clinical trials. Integrated knowledge translation and shared decision-making were emphasized to ensure the goals of the platform align with clinical researchers and patient partners. 29 participants from 10 independent labs attended and discussed four main topics: (1) objectives of the platform; (2) animal models of sepsis; (3) multicentre methodology and (4) outcomes for evaluation. A PIRO model (predisposition, insult, response, organ dysfunction) for experimental design was proposed to strengthen linkages with interdisciplinary researchers and key stakeholders. This platform represents an important resource for maximizing translational impact of preclinical sepsis research.

Identifying and understanding factors that affect the translation of therapies from the laboratory to patients: a study protocol.

Background: The process of translating preclinical findings into a clinical setting takes decades. Previous studies have suggested that only 5-10% of the most promising preclinical studies are successfully translated into viable clinical applications. The underlying determinants of this low success rate (e.g. poor experimental design, suboptimal animal models, poor reporting) have not been examined in an empirical manner. Our study aims to determine the contemporary success rate of preclinical-to-clinical translation, and subsequently determine if an association between preclinical study design and translational success/failure exists. Methods: Established systematic review methodology will be used with regards to the literature search, article screening and study selection process. Preclinical, basic science studies published in high impact basic science journals between 1995 and 2015 will be included. Included studies will focus on publicly available interventions with potential clinical promise. The primary outcome will be successful clinical translation of promising therapies - defined as the conduct of at least one Phase II trial (or greater) with a positive finding. A case-control study will then be performed to evaluate the association between elements of preclinical study design and reporting and the likelihood of successful translation. Discussion: This study will provide a comprehensive analysis of the therapeutic translation from the laboratory bench to the bedside. Importantly, any association between factors of study design and the success of translation will be identified. These findings may inform future research teams attempting preclinical-to-clinical translation. Results will be disseminated to identified knowledge users that fund/support preclinical research.