An assessment of the informative value of data sharing statements in clinical trial registries.

BACKGROUND: The provision of data sharing statements (DSS) for clinical trials has been made mandatory by different stakeholders. DSS are a device to clarify whether there is intention to share individual participant data (IPD). What is missing is a detailed assessment of whether DSS are providing clear and understandable information about the conditions for data sharing of IPD for secondary use. METHODS: A random sample of 200 COVID-19 clinical trials with explicit DSS was drawn from the ECRIN clinical research metadata repository. The DSS were assessed and classified, by two experienced experts and one assessor with less experience in data sharing (DS), into different categories (unclear, no sharing, no plans, yes but vague, yes on request, yes with specified storage location, yes but with complex conditions). RESULTS: Between the two experts the agreement was moderate to substantial (kappa=0.62, 95% CI [0.55, 0.70]). Agreement considerably decreased when these experts were compared with a third person who was less experienced and trained in data sharing ("assessor") (kappa=0.33, 95% CI [0.25, 0.41]; 0.35, 95% CI [0.27, 0.43]). Between the two experts and under supervision of an independent moderator, a consensus was achieved for those cases, where both experts had disagreed, and the result was used as "gold standard" for further analysis. At least some degree of willingness of DS (data sharing) was expressed in 63.5% (127/200) cases. Of these cases, around one quarter (31/127) were vague statements of support for data sharing but without useful detail. In around half of the cases (60/127) it was stated that IPD could be obtained by request. Only in in slightly more than 10% of the cases (15/127) it was stated that the IPD would be transferred to a specific data repository. In the remaining cases (21/127), a more complex regime was described or referenced, which could not be allocated to one of the three previous groups. As a result of the consensus meetings, the classification system was updated. CONCLUSION: The study showed that the current DSS that imply possible data sharing are often not easy to interpret, even by relatively experienced staff. Machine based interpretation, which would be necessary for any practical application, is currently not possible. Machine learning and / or natural language processing techniques might improve machine actionability, but would represent a very substantial investment of research effort. The cheaper and easier option would be for data providers, data requestors, funders and platforms to adopt a clearer, more structured and more standardised approach to specifying, providing and collecting DSS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The protocol for the study was pre-registered on ZENODO ( https://zenodo.org/record/7064624#.Y4DIAHbMJD8 ).

Comparative analysis of diagnostic ultrasound and histopathology for detecting cervical lymph node metastases in head and neck cancer.

PURPOSE: We evaluated the current performance of diagnostic ultrasound (US) for detecting cervical lymph node (LN) metastases based on objective measures and subjective findings in comparison to the gold standard, histopathological evaluation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From 2007 to 2016, we prospectively included patients with head and neck cancer who were scheduled for surgical therapy including neck dissection. LNs were examined by multimodal US by a level III head and neck sonologist and individually assigned to a map containing six AAO-HNS neck LN levels preoperatively. During the operation, LNs were dissected and then assessed by routine histopathology, with 86% of them examined individually and the remaining LNs (14%) per AAO-HNS neck LN level. The optimal cutoff points (OCPs) of four defined LN diameters and 2D and 3D roundness indices per AAO-HNS neck LN level were determined. RESULTS: In total, 235 patients were included, and 4539 LNs were analyzed by US, 7237 by histopathology and 2684 by both methods. Of these, 259 (9.65%) were classified as suspicious for metastasis by US, whereas 299 (11.14%) were found to be positive by histopathology. Subjective US sensitivity and specificity were 0.79 and 0.99, respectively. The OCPs of the individual LN diameters and the 2D and 3D roundness index were determined individually for all AAO-HNS neck LN levels. Across all levels, the OCP for the 2D index was 1.79 and the 3D index was 14.97. The predictive performance of all distances, indices, and subjective findings improved with increasing metastasis size. Anticipation of pN stage was best achieved with subjective US findings and the smallest diameter (Cohen's κ = 0.713 and 0.438, respectively). CONCLUSION: Our LN mapping and meticulous 1:1 node-by-node comparison reveals the usefulness of US for detecting metastatic involvement of neck LNs in head and neck carcinomas as compared to histopathology. The predictive ability for small tumor deposits less than 8 mm in size remains weak and urgently needs improvement.

Effect of bosentan on skin fibrosis in patients with systemic sclerosis: a prospective, open-label, non-comparative trial.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of the ET-receptor antagonist bosentan on skin fibrosis and functionality in patients with SSc. METHODS: In this prospective, open-label, non-comparative trial, a total of 10 patients with SSc received 62.5 mg of bosentan twice daily for 4 weeks and then 125 mg twice daily for 20 weeks. The primary endpoint was skin thickening as measured by the modified Rodnan skin score (mRSS). Further assessments included 20 MHz ultrasound, examination of digital ulcers (DUs) and evaluation of hand function by examining patients' fist closure. Furthermore, patients with SSc used the UK SSc Functional Score (UKFS), the modified scleroderma HAQ (SHAQ) and its visual analogue scale (VAS) to rate their disability related to specific organ systems. RESULTS: The mean change from baseline mRSS (the primary endpoint) was 6.4 at Week 24 of bosentan treatment, which was statistically significant (P < 0.001). Patients with both diffuse and limited SSc exhibited a statistically significant mean difference in the mRSS. Moreover, there was a significant healing of DUs noted between baseline and at Week 24 of bosentan treatment (P < 0.001); however, the 20 MHz ultrasound and the fist closure evaluation revealed no significant differences. There were also no statistically significant changes between baseline and Week 24 in the UKFS, the modified SHAQ and its VAS. CONCLUSION: In addition to the well-known effect of bosentan in prevention of DUs, the results of this study demonstrate that bosentan may also be effective at reducing skin fibrosis in patients with SSc.