Research transparency in dental research: A programmatic analysis.

We assessed adherence to five transparency practices-data sharing, code sharing, conflict of interest disclosure, funding disclosure, and protocol registration-in articles in dental journals. We searched and exported the full text of all research articles from PubMed-indexed dental journals available in the Europe PubMed Central database until the end of 2021. We programmatically assessed their adherence to the five transparency practices using a validated and automated tool. Journal- and article-related information was retrieved from ScimagoJR and Journal Citation Reports. Of all 329,784 articles published in PubMed-indexed dental journals, 10,659 (3.2%) were available to download. Of those, 77% included a conflict of interest disclosure, and 62% included a funding disclosure. Seven percent of the articles had a registered protocol. Data sharing (2.0%) and code sharing (0.1%) were rarer. Sixteen percent of articles did not adhere to any of the five transparency practices, 29% adhered to one, 48% adhered to two, 7.0% adhered to three, 0.3% adhered to four, and no article adhered to all five practices. Adherence to transparency practices increased over time; however, data and code sharing especially remained rare. Coordinated efforts involving all stakeholders are needed to change current transparency practices in dental research.

Definitions and Clinical Trial Design Principles for Coronary Artery Chronic Total Occlusion Therapies: CTO-ARC Consensus Recommendations.

Over the past 2 decades, chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention has developed into its own subspecialty of interventional cardiology. Dedicated terminology, techniques, devices, courses, and training programs have enabled progressive advancements. However, only a few randomized trials have been performed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of CTO percutaneous coronary intervention. Moreover, several published observational studies have shown conflicting data. Part of the paucity of clinical data stems from the fact that prior studies have been suboptimally designed and performed. The absence of standardized end points and the discrepancy in definitions also prevent consistency and uniform interpretability of reported results in CTO intervention. To standardize the field, we therefore assembled a broad consortium comprising academicians, practicing physicians, researchers, medical society representatives, and regulators (US Food and Drug Administration) to develop methods, end points, biomarkers, parameters, data, materials, processes, procedures, evaluations, tools, and techniques for CTO interventions. This article summarizes the effort and is organized into 3 sections: key elements and procedural definitions, end point definitions, and clinical trial design principles. The Chronic Total Occlusion Academic Research Consortium is a first step toward improved comparability and interpretability of study results, supplying an increasingly growing body of CTO percutaneous coronary intervention evidence.

Improving the patient-reported outcome sections of clinical trial protocols: a mixed methods evaluation of educational workshops.

INTRODUCTION: Failure to incorporate key patient-reported outcome (PRO) content in trial protocols affects the quality and interpretability of the collected data, contributing to research waste. Our group developed evidence-based training specifically addressing PRO components of protocols. We aimed to assess whether 2-day educational workshops improved the PRO completeness of protocols against consensus-based minimum standards provided in the SPIRIT-PRO Extension in 2018. METHOD: Annual workshops were conducted 2011-2017. Participants were investigators/trialists from cancer clinical trials groups. Although developed before 2018, workshops covered 15/16 SPIRIT-PRO items. Participant feedback immediately post-workshop and, retrospectively, in November 2017 was summarised descriptively. Protocols were evaluated against SPIRIT-PRO by two independent raters for workshop protocols (developed post-workshop by participants) and control protocols (contemporaneous non-workshop protocols). SPIRIT-PRO items were assessed for completeness (0 = not addressed, 10 = fully addressed). Mann-Whitney U tests assessed whether workshop protocols scored higher than controls by item and overall. RESULTS: Participants (n = 107) evaluated the workshop positively. In 2017, 16/41 survey responders (39%) reported never applying in practice; barriers included role restrictions (14/41, 34%) and lack of time (5/41, 12%). SPIRIT-PRO overall scores did not differ between workshop (n = 13, median = 3.81/10, interquartile range = 3.24) and control protocols (n = 9, 3.51/10 (2.14)), (p = 0.35). Workshop protocols scored higher than controls on two items: 'specify PRO concepts/domains' (p = 0.05); 'methods for handling missing data' (p = 0.044). CONCLUSION: Although participants were highly satisfied with these workshops, the completeness of PRO protocol content generally did not improve. Additional knowledge translation efforts are needed to assist protocol writers address SPIRIT-PRO guidance and avoid research waste that may eventuate from sub-optimal PRO protocol content.

Diversity in Alzheimer's disease drug trials: The importance of eligibility criteria.

INTRODUCTION: To generalize safety and efficacy findings, it is essential that diverse populations are well represented in Alzheimer's disease (AD) drug trials. In this review, we aimed to investigate participant diversity in disease-modifying AD trials over time, and the frequencies of participant eligibility criteria. METHODS: A systematic review was performed using Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Clinicaltrials.gov, identifying 2247 records. RESULTS: In the 101 included AD trials, participants were predominantly White (median percentage: 94.7%, interquartile range: 81.0-96.7%); and this percentage showed no significant increase or decrease over time (2001-2019). Eligibility criteria such as exclusion of persons with psychiatric illness (78.2%), cardiovascular disease (71.3%) and cerebrovascular disease (68.3%), obligated caregiver attendance (80.2%), and specific Mini-Mental State Examination scores (90.1%; no significant increase/decrease over time) may have led to a disproportionate exclusion of ethnoracially diverse individuals. DISCUSSION: Ethnoracially diverse participants continue to be underrepresented in AD clinical trials. Several recommendations are provided to broaden eligibility criteria.

Defining High Bleeding Risk in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

Identification and management of patients at high bleeding risk undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention are of major importance, but a lack of standardization in defining this population limits trial design, data interpretation, and clinical decision-making. The Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk (ARC-HBR) is a collaboration among leading research organizations, regulatory authorities, and physician-scientists from the United States, Asia, and Europe focusing on percutaneous coronary intervention-related bleeding. Two meetings of the 31-member consortium were held in Washington, DC, in April 2018 and in Paris, France, in October 2018. These meetings were organized by the Cardiovascular European Research Center on behalf of the ARC-HBR group and included representatives of the US Food and Drug Administration and the Japanese Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency, as well as observers from the pharmaceutical and medical device industries. A consensus definition of patients at high bleeding risk was developed that was based on review of the available evidence. The definition is intended to provide consistency in defining this population for clinical trials and to complement clinical decision-making and regulatory review. The proposed ARC-HBR consensus document represents the first pragmatic approach to a consistent definition of high bleeding risk in clinical trials evaluating the safety and effectiveness of devices and drug regimens for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

Pilot study of the multicentre DISCHARGE Trial: image quality and protocol adherence results of computed tomography and invasive coronary angiography.

OBJECTIVE: To implement detailed EU cardiac computed tomography angiography (CCTA) quality criteria in the multicentre DISCHARGE trial (FP72007-2013, EC-GA 603266), we reviewed image quality and adherence to CCTA protocol and to the recommendations of invasive coronary angiography (ICA) in a pilot study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From every clinical centre, imaging datasets of three patients per arm were assessed for adherence to the inclusion/exclusion criteria of the pilot study, predefined standards for the CCTA protocol and ICA recommendations, image quality and non-diagnostic (NDX) rate. These parameters were compared via multinomial regression and ANOVA. If a site did not reach the minimum quality level, additional datasets had to be sent before entering into the final accepted database (FADB). RESULTS: We analysed 226 cases (150 CCTA/76 ICA). The inclusion/exclusion criteria were not met by 6 of the 226 (2.7%) datasets. The predefined standard was not met by 13 of 76 ICA datasets (17.1%). This percentage decreased between the initial CCTA database and the FADB (multinomial regression, 53 of 70 vs 17 of 75 [76%] vs [23%]). The signal-to-noise ratio and contrast-to-noise ratio of the FADB did not improve significantly (ANOVA, p = 0.20; p = 0.09). The CTA NDX rate was reduced, but not significantly (initial CCTA database 15 of 70 [21.4%]) and FADB 9 of 75 [12%]; p = 0.13). CONCLUSION: We were able to increase conformity to the inclusion/exclusion criteria and CCTA protocol, improve image quality and decrease the CCTA NDX rate by implementing EU CCTA quality criteria and ICA recommendations. KEY POINTS: • Failure to meet protocol adherence in cardiac CTA was high in the pilot study (77.6%). • Image quality varies between sites and can be improved by feedback given by the core lab. • Conformance with new EU cardiac CT quality criteria might render cardiac CTA findings more consistent and comparable.

Defining high bleeding risk in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a consensus document from the Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk.

Identification and management of patients at high bleeding risk undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention are of major importance, but a lack of standardization in defining this population limits trial design, data interpretation, and clinical decision-making. The Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk (ARC-HBR) is a collaboration among leading research organizations, regulatory authorities, and physician-scientists from the United States, Asia, and Europe focusing on percutaneous coronary intervention-related bleeding. Two meetings of the 31-member consortium were held in Washington, DC, in April 2018 and in Paris, France, in October 2018. These meetings were organized by the Cardiovascular European Research Center on behalf of the ARC-HBR group and included representatives of the US Food and Drug Administration and the Japanese Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency, as well as observers from the pharmaceutical and medical device industries. A consensus definition of patients at high bleeding risk was developed that was based on review of the available evidence. The definition is intended to provide consistency in defining this population for clinical trials and to complement clinical decision-making and regulatory review. The proposed ARC-HBR consensus document represents the first pragmatic approach to a consistent definition of high bleeding risk in clinical trials evaluating the safety and effectiveness of devices and drug regimens for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

Variation in Accrual and Race/Ethnicity Reporting in Urological and Nonurological Related Cancer Trials.

PURPOSE: We performed a multiregistry analysis to assess relative differences in accrual sufficiency and race/ethnicity reporting in trials of common urological cancers and other nonurological solid organ tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We queried ClinicalTrials.gov and the ISRCTN (International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number) Registry for closed phase III and IV trials focused on prostate, colorectal, kidney, bladder, testicular, breast and lung cancer. Identified trials were cross-verified with appropriate published data sources. Comparative accrual sufficiency and rates of race/ethnicity reporting were calculated. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to determine factors associated with accrual status and race/ethnicity reporting. RESULTS: A total of 326 trials were identified based on our prespecified criteria, of which 63% reported sufficient accrual by time of closure and 58% reported data by race/ethnicity. Nonurological trials were significantly more likely to mention race data than urological trials (OR 3.25, 95% CI 1.24-8.55, p = 0.02). Industry sponsored trials were more likely to meet accrual targets than government funded projects (OR 5.44, 95% CI 1.64-18.20, p = 0.001). Although funding source did not influence race reporting, the reported recruitment of participants of African ethnicity was lower in industry sponsored trials (11.49% vs 3.18%, p <0.01). Two-thirds of the studies did not report baseline characteristics by African American race/ethnicity. CONCLUSIONS: Insufficient accrual and inadequate race/ethnicity reporting are prevalent issues, limiting interpretation of the results of clinical trials of major solid organ malignancies. Addressing these shortcomings would enhance result validity by raising statistical power and improving the transparency of reporting to better evaluate the generalizability of results.

Methods used to develop the SPIRIT 2024 and CONSORT 2024 Statements.

OBJECTIVES: To describe, and explain the rationale for, the methods used and decisions made during development of the updated SPIRIT 2024 and CONSORT 2024 reporting guidelines. METHODS: We developed SPIRIT 2024 and CONSORT 2024 together to facilitate harmonization of the two guidelines, and incorporated content from key extensions. We conducted a scoping review of comments suggesting changes to SPIRIT 2013 and CONSORT 2010, and compiled a list of other possible revisions based on existing SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions, other reporting guidelines, and personal communications. From this, we generated a list of potential modifications or additions to SPIRIT and CONSORT, which we presented to stakeholders for feedback in an international online Delphi survey. The Delphi survey results were discussed at an online expert consensus meeting attended by 30 invited international participants. We then drafted the updated SPIRIT and CONSORT checklists and revised them based on further feedback from meeting attendees. RESULTS: We compiled 83 suggestions for revisions or additions to SPIRIT and/or CONSORT from the scoping review and 85 from other sources, from which we generated 33 potential changes to SPIRIT (n = 5) or CONSORT (n = 28). Of 463 participants invited to take part in the Delphi survey, 317 (68%) responded to Round 1, 303 (65%) to Round 2 and 290 (63%) to Round 3. Two additional potential checklist changes were added to the Delphi survey based on Round 1 comments. Overall, 14/35 (SPIRIT n = 0; CONSORT n = 14) proposed changes reached the predefined consensus threshold (≥80% agreement), and participants provided 3580 free-text comments. The consensus meeting participants agreed with implementing 11/14 of the proposed changes that reached consensus in the Delphi and supported implementing a further 4/21 changes (SPIRIT n = 2; CONSORT n = 2) that had not reached the Delphi threshold. They also recommended further changes to refine key concepts and for clarity. CONCLUSION: The forthcoming SPIRIT 2024 and CONSORT 2024 Statements will provide updated, harmonized guidance for reporting randomized controlled trial protocols and results, respectively. The simultaneous development of the SPIRIT and CONSORT checklists has been informed by current empirical evidence and extensive input from stakeholders. We hope that this report of the methods used will be helpful for developers of future reporting guidelines.

A global federated real-world data and analytics platform for research.

Objective: This article describes a scalable, performant, sustainable global network of electronic health record data for biomedical and clinical research. Materials and Methods: TriNetX has created a technology platform characterized by a conservative security and governance model that facilitates collaboration and cooperation between industry participants, such as pharmaceutical companies and contract research organizations, and academic and community-based healthcare organizations (HCOs). HCOs participate on the network in return for access to a suite of analytics capabilities, large networks of de-identified data, and more sponsored trial opportunities. Industry participants provide the financial resources to support, expand, and improve the technology platform in return for access to network data, which provides increased efficiencies in clinical trial design and deployment. Results: TriNetX is a growing global network, expanding from 55 HCOs and 7 countries in 2017 to over 220 HCOs and 30 countries in 2022. Over 19 000 sponsored clinical trial opportunities have been initiated through the TriNetX network. There have been over 350 peer-reviewed scientific publications based on the network's data. Conclusions: The continued growth of the TriNetX network and its yield of clinical trial collaborations and published studies indicates that this academic-industry structure is a safe, proven, sustainable path for building and maintaining research-centric data networks.

Diversity, equity, and inclusion in clinical trials: A practical guide from the perspective of a trial sponsor.

BACKGROUND: Considering diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in clinical trials ensures that data collected for investigational treatments reflect the populations most likely to benefit from those therapies. Resources and recommendations regarding DEI were assembled by the trial sponsor to assist clinical trial development. METHODS: A cross-disciplinary team from the sponsoring organization was assembled to inform trial planning and collate resources that promote DEI throughout the clinical trial life cycle. RESULTS: Representatives from clinical operations, health economic outcomes research, medical affairs, patient advocacy, procurement, and research and development functional groups united together to implement DEI strategies in clinical trials. Planning strategies focus on eligibility, participant/patient engagement, feedback through patient advocacy organizations, and community interactions. Informed site, investigator, and vendor selection at trial startup supports efforts to recruit diverse target trial populations and engage underrepresented businesses; establishing relationships and demographic target-goal tracking should be maintained throughout trial management. Continued communication during trial closeout consolidates learnings and enhances partnerships with trial participants and patient advocacy organizations. The sponsoring organization continuously updates an internal library of resources to facilitate implementation of outlined strategies. CONCLUSIONS: This first iteration of guidance intends to improve the representation of target populations who will ultimately benefit from investigational therapies; to assist sponsor clinical trial teams in developing recruitment and retention plans; and to ensure compliance with federal granting agencies. The sponsoring organization anticipates data from future clinical trials will help characterize the impact of these initiatives to ensure evidence-based practices are used in future clinical trials to enhance DEI.

Perceived Barriers to Clinical Trials Participation: A Survey of Pediatric Caregivers.

Introduction: Pediatric clinical trials are difficult to conduct, leading to off-label use of medication in children based on results of trials with adults. As a unique population, children deserve to have appropriately tested therapies. The purpose of this study was to evaluate pediatric caregivers' beliefs and perceived barriers to participation in clinical trials. Methods: The study was completed within the Sunflower Pediatric Clinical Trials Research Extension (SPeCTRE), an affiliate of the IDeA States Pediatric Clinical Trials Network (ISPCTN). This was a cross-sectional survey, adapted from the Pediatric Research Participation Questionnaire. A convenience sample of pediatric caregivers was recruited in three areas of a highly rural Midwestern state between 2017 and 2018. Results: A total of 159 caregivers completed surveys; the majority (72.3%) were previously familiar with clinical trials, but less than 20% had ever been invited to participate. Caregivers were willing to consider enrolling their child if a physician in whom they had high trust recommended the trials (H = 10.1, p = 0.04) and if there were perceived benefits, such as access to tests and medications not covered by insurance (correlation coefficient [CC] = 0.4, p < 0.01) and compensation for time and travel (CC = 0.3, p = 0.04). Conclusions: Trust in their physician highly influences likelihood of a caregiver consenting to have their child participate in a clinical trial. Therefore, to facilitate opportunities for children to participate in clinical trials, physicians need to be trained so they can offer trials locally. In addition, trials need to offer benefits, such as increased access to tests and medications as well as appropriate compensation.

How do trial teams plan for retention during the design stage of the trial? A scoping review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Retention remains a major challenge for many clinical trials. The SPIRIT guidelines state the following information on retention should be included in the trial protocol "Plans to promote participant retention and complete follow-up, including list of any outcome data to be collected for participants who discontinue or deviate from intervention protocols". This guidance shows the importance of planning retention methods and handling missing data as this can impact how the results of the trial are interpreted. The most recent Cochrane review of strategies to improve retention in clinical trials highlighted that some trials implemented multiple retention strategies and we questioned whether the use of multiple strategies was planned at the design stage and included in the protocol or are strategies implemented when retention becomes an issue within the trial. The purpose of our scoping review is to establish if and how trial teams prepare for retention at the design phase of clinical trials. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will follow the methodological framework and guidelines for scoping reviews outlined by the Joanna Briggs Institute. We will search MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, CINAHL (EBSCO), and Web of Science. A comprehensive search strategy for PubMed was developed in collaboration with an experienced research librarian. We will include protocols for phase 2, 3, and 4 RCTs as well as pilot and feasibility studies. The screening process will involve two reviewers. EM will independently screen all titles and abstracts. FS will screen 10% of the overall search output, and where necessary full protocol texts will be screened to determine eligibility. We will randomly sample eligible protocols to ensure the protocols represent a variety of trial and intervention types. Data will be extracted from each protocol and the results will be synthesised. The analysis will be qualitative using a narrative summary and descriptive statistics where appropriate. DISCUSSION: The scoping review will help trial methodologists better understand if retention strategies are planned for during the design stage of the trial contributing to the PRioRiTy II unanswered question "How should people who run trials plan for retention during their funding application and creation of the trial (protocol development)?".

A meta-research study of randomized controlled trials found infrequent and delayed availability of protocols.

OBJECTIVES: Availability of randomized controlled trial (RCT) protocols is essential for the interpretation of trial results and research transparency. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: In this study, we determined the availability of RCT protocols approved in Switzerland, Canada, Germany, and the United Kingdom in 2012. For these RCTs, we searched PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, and trial registries for publicly available protocols and corresponding full-text publications of results. We determined the proportion of RCTs with (1) publicly available protocols, (2) publications citing the protocol, and (3) registries providing a link to the protocol. A multivariable logistic regression model explored factors associated with protocol availability. RESULTS: Three hundred twenty-six RCTs were included, of which 118 (36.2%) made their protocol publicly available; 56 (47.6% 56 of 118) provided as a peer-reviewed publication and 48 (40.7%, 48 of 118) provided as supplementary material. A total of 90.9% (100 of 110) of the protocols were cited in the main publication, and 55.9% (66 of 118) were linked in the clinical trial registry. Larger sample size (>500; odds ratio [OR] = 5.90, 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.75-13.31) and investigator sponsorship (OR = 1.99, 95% CI, 1.11-3.59) were associated with increased protocol availability. Most protocols were made available shortly before the publication of the main results. CONCLUSION: RCT protocols should be made available at an early stage of the trial.

Completeness of clinical evidence citation in trial protocols: A cross-sectional analysis.

BACKGROUND: Human protection policies require assessment of how proposed clinical trials relate to prior and ongoing studies testing similar hypotheses. We assessed the extent to which clinical trial protocols cited relevant published and ongoing clinical trials that would have been easily accessible with reference searches. METHODS: We created a random sample of trial protocols using ClinicalTrials.gov, stratifying by industry and non-industry-sponsored studies. We then conducted reference searches to determine the extent to which protocols cited clinical trials with identical intervention-indication pairings that were accessible in PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov at the time of trial initiation. FINDINGS: Of the 101 trial protocols evaluated, 73 had at least one identified citable trial. None contained statements suggesting a systematic search for relevant clinical evidence. Of industry-sponsored trial protocols with at least one identified citable trial, 7 of 23 (30.4%) did not cite any published clinical trials and 10 of 33 (30.3%) did not cite any ongoing relevant trials. Of the non-industry-sponsored trial protocols with at least one identified citable trial, 5 of 28 (17.9%) did not cite any published clinical trials and 14 of 19 (73.7%) did not cite any ongoing trials. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical trial protocols undercite accessible, relevant trials and do not document systematic searches for relevant clinical trials. Consequently, ethics review committees often receive an incomplete picture of the research landscape if they review protocols similar to those deposited on ClinicalTrials.gov. FUNDING: This study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Greenwall Foundation.

Systematic review of the use of translated patient-reported outcome measures in cancer trials.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are used in clinical trials to assess the effectiveness and tolerability of interventions. Inclusion of participants from different ethnic backgrounds is essential for generalisability of cancer trial results. PRO data collection should include appropriately translated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to minimise missing data and sample attrition. METHODS: Protocols and/or publications from cancer clinical trials using a PRO endpoint and registered on the National Institute for Health Research Portfolio were systematically reviewed for information on recruitment, inclusion of ethnicity data, and use of appropriately translated PROMs. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with key stakeholders to explore barriers and facilitators for optimal PRO trial design, diverse recruitment and reporting, and use of appropriately translated PROMs. RESULTS: Eighty-four trials met the inclusion criteria, only 14 (17%) (n = 4754) reported ethnic group data, and ethnic group recruitment was low, 611 (13%). Although 8 (57%) studies were multi-centred and multi-national, none reported using translated PROMs, although available for 7 (88%) of the studies. Interviews with 44 international stakeholders identified a number of perceived barriers to ethnically diverse recruitment including diverse participant engagement, relevance of ethnicity to research question, prominence of PROs, and need to minimise investigator burden. Stakeholders had differing opinions on the use of translated PROMs, the impact of trial designs, and recruitment strategies on diverse recruitment. Facilitators of inclusive research were described and examples of good practice identified. CONCLUSIONS: Greater transparency is required when PROs are used as primary or secondary outcomes in clinical trials. Protocols and publications should demonstrate that recruitment was accessible to diverse populations and facilitated by trial design, recruitment strategies, and appropriate PROM usage. The use of translated PROMs should be made explicit when used in cancer clinical trials.

Assessment of Outcomes of Immediately Loaded Dental Implants in Orofacial Cleft Patients: Protocol for a Single-Arm Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Orofacial cleft, one of the most common congenital deformities, presents with a plethora of defects, subjecting the patient to a multitude of treatments from a young age. Among the oral hard tissue problems, absence of a maxillary permanent tooth in the cleft region either due to congenital absence or extraction due to compromised prognosis is a common finding. Conventionally, the missing tooth is replaced using a removable or fixed partial denture; however, the treatment modality does not satisfactorily meet patient expectations. The most recent decade has seen increasing use of dental implants in the cleft region; however, the outcome of an immediately loaded dental implant is still elusive for orofacial cleft patients. OBJECTIVE: This protocol is for a single-arm clinical trial aimed at determining the treatment outcome of immediately loaded dental implants in patients with a nonsyndromic orofacial cleft. METHODS: Patients meeting the set criteria will be sequentially enrolled until a sample size of 30 dental implants is met and will undergo the proposed treatment according to the predecided protocol. All patients will be followed up at the designated time intervals to record various clinical and radiographic parameters. Implant success will be defined based on the criteria elucidated by Misch et al in the Pisa, Italy Consensus. A quality-of-life assessment questionnaire will also be recorded at the end of patient's follow-up to determine their acceptance of the treatment. RESULTS: A total of 30 dental implants will be placed in patients with a nonsyndromic orofacial cleft. Obtained results will be statistically analyzed to determine the treatment outcomes and success. CONCLUSIONS: This study will help determine the feasibility of immediately loaded dental implants in compromised bone sites such as those presented in cleft patients and will help in generating findings that can be used to fill the lacunae currently present in the holistic treatment of cleft patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trial Registry of India CTRI/2020/09/027997; http://ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/showallp.php?mid1=47659&EncHid=&userName=dental%20implants. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/25244.

The Scleroderma Patient-Centered Intervention Network Self-Management Program: Protocol for a Randomized Feasibility Trial.

BACKGROUND: Systemic sclerosis (SSc), or scleroderma, is a rare disease that often results in significant disruptions to activities of daily living and can negatively affect physical and psychological well-being. Because there is no known cure, SSc treatment focuses on reducing symptoms and disability and improving health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Self-management programs are known to increase self-efficacy for disease management in many chronic diseases. The Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network (SPIN) developed a Web-based self-management program (SPIN self-management; SPIN-SELF) to increase self-efficacy for disease management and to improve HRQoL for patients with SSc. OBJECTIVE: The proposed study aims to assess the feasibility of conducting a full-scale randomized controlled trial (RCT) of the SPIN-SELF program by evaluating the trial implementation processes, required resources and management, scientific aspects, and participant acceptability and usage of the SPIN-SELF program. METHODS: The SPIN-SELF feasibility trial will be conducted via the SPIN Cohort. The SPIN Cohort was developed as a framework for embedded pragmatic trials using the cohort multiple RCT design. In total, 40 English-speaking SPIN Cohort participants with low disease management self-efficacy (Self-Efficacy for Managing Chronic Disease Scale score ≤7), who have indicated interest in using a Web-based self-management program, will be randomized with a 3:2 ratio into the SPIN-SELF program or usual care for 3 months. Feasibility outcomes include trial implementation processes, required resources and management, scientific aspects, and patient acceptability and usage of the SPIN-SELF program. RESULTS: Enrollment of the 40 participants occurred between July 5, 2019, and July 27, 2019. By November 25, 2019, data collection of trial outcomes was completed. Data analysis is underway, and results are expected to be published in 2020. CONCLUSIONS: The SPIN-SELF program is a self-help tool that may improve disease-management self-efficacy and improve HRQoL in patients with SSc. The SPIN-SELF feasibility trial will ensure that trial methodology is robust, feasible, and consistent with trial participant expectations. The results will guide adjustments that need to be implemented before undertaking a full-scale RCT of the SPIN-SELF program. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/16799.

Outcome reporting recommendations for clinical trial protocols and reports: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians, patients, and policy-makers rely on published evidence from clinical trials to help inform decision-making. A lack of complete and transparent reporting of the investigated trial outcomes limits reproducibility of results and knowledge synthesis efforts, and contributes to outcome switching and other reporting biases. Outcome-specific extensions for the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT-Outcomes) and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT-Outcomes) reporting guidelines are under development to facilitate harmonized reporting of outcomes in trial protocols and reports. The aim of this review was to identify and synthesize existing guidance for trial outcome reporting to inform extension development. METHODS: We searched for documents published in the last 10 years that provided guidance on trial outcome reporting using: an electronic bibliographic database search (MEDLINE and the Cochrane Methodology Register); a grey literature search; and solicitation of colleagues using a snowballing approach. Two reviewers completed title and abstract screening, full-text screening, and data charting after training. Extracted trial outcome reporting guidance was compared with candidate reporting items to support, refute, or refine the items and to assess the need for the development of additional items. RESULTS: In total, 1758 trial outcome reporting recommendations were identified within 244 eligible documents. The majority of documents were published by academic journals (72%). Comparison of each recommendation with the initial list of 70 candidate items led to the development of an additional 62 items, producing 132 candidate items. The items encompassed outcome selection, definition, measurement, analysis, interpretation, and reporting of modifications between trial documents. The total number of documents supporting each candidate item ranged widely (median 5, range 0-84 documents per item), illustrating heterogeneity in the recommendations currently available for outcome reporting across a large and diverse sample of sources. CONCLUSIONS: Outcome reporting guidance for clinical trial protocols and reports lacks consistency and is spread across a large number of sources that may be challenging to access and implement in practice. Evidence and consensus-based guidance, currently in development (SPIRIT-Outcomes and CONSORT-Outcomes), may help authors adequately describe trial outcomes in protocols and reports transparently and completely to help reduce avoidable research waste.