Article

Developing a guideline for clinical trial protocol content: Delphi consensus survey

Trials (Impact Factor: 2.12). 09/2012; 13(1). DOI: 10.1186/1745-6215-13-176

ABSTRACT Background
Recent evidence has highlighted deficiencies in clinical trial protocols, having implications for many groups. Existing guidelines for randomized clinical trial (RCT) protocol content vary substantially and most do not describe systematic methodology for their development. As one of three prespecified steps for the systematic development of a guideline for trial protocol content, the objective of this study was to conduct a three-round Delphi consensus survey to develop and refine minimum content for RCT protocols.

Methods
Panellists were identified using a multistep iterative approach, met prespecified minimum criteria and represented key stakeholders who develop or use clinical trial protocols. They were asked to rate concepts for importance in a minimum set of items for RCT protocols. The main outcome measures were degree of importance (scale of 1 to 10; higher scores indicating higher importance) and level of consensus for items. Results were presented as medians, interquartile ranges, counts and percentages.

Results
Ninety-six expert panellists participated in the Delphi consensus survey including trial investigators, methodologists, research ethics board members, funders, industry, regulators and journal editors. Response rates were between 88 and 93% per round. Overall, panellists rated 63 of 88 concepts of high importance (of which 50 had a 25th percentile rating of 8 or greater), 13 of moderate importance (median 6 or 7) and 12 of low importance (median less than or equal to 5) for minimum trial protocol content. General and item-specific comments and subgroup results provided valuable insight for further discussions.

Conclusions
This Delphi process achieved consensus from a large panel of experts from diverse stakeholder groups on essential content for RCT protocols. It also highlights areas of divergence. These results, complemented by other empirical research and consensus meetings, are helping guide the development of a guideline for protocol content.

0 Followers
 · 
57 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Chronic myofascial pain syndrome (MPS) has been related to defective descending inhibitory systems. Twenty-four females aging 19-65 yo with chronic MPS were randomized to receive ten sessions of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) (n=12) at 10 Hz or a sham intervention (n=12). We tested if pain [quantitative sensory testing (QST)], descending inhibitory systems [conditioned pain modulation (QST+CPM)], cortical excitability (TMS parameters) and the brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) would be modified. There was a significant interaction (time vs. group) regarding the main outcomes of the pain scores as indexed by the visual analogue scale on pain (analysis of variance, P<0.01). Post hoc analysis showed that compared with placebo-sham, the treatment reduced daily pain scores by -30.21% (95% confidence interval [CI] -39.23 to -21.20) and analgesic use by -44.56 (-57.46 to -31.67). Compared to sham, rTMS enhanced the corticospinal inhibitory system (41.74% reduction in QST+CPM, P<0.05), reduced in 23.94% the intracortical facilitation (P=0.03), increased in 52.02% the motor evoked potential (P=0.02) and presented 12.38 ng/mL higher serum BDNF (95%CI=2.32 to 22.38). No adverse events were observed. rTMS analgesic effects in chronic MPS were mediated by top-down regulation mechanisms enhancing the corticospinal inhibitory system possibly via BDNF secretion modulation.
    Journal of Pain 05/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.jpain.2014.05.001 · 4.22 Impact Factor
  • Maturitas 02/2014; 78(1). DOI:10.1016/j.maturitas.2014.02.008 · 2.86 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Qualitative evidence suggests patient-reported outcome (PRO) information is frequently absent from clinical trial protocols, potentially leading to inconsistent PRO data collection and risking bias. Direct evidence regarding PRO trial protocol content is lacking. The aim of this study was to systematically evaluate the PRO-specific content of UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme trial protocols. Methods and Findings We conducted an electronic search of the NIHR HTA programme database (inception to August 2013) for protocols describing a randomised controlled trial including a primary/secondary PRO. Two investigators independently reviewed the content of each protocol, using a specially constructed PRO-specific protocol checklist, alongside the ‘Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials’ (SPIRIT) checklist. Disagreements were resolved through discussion with a third investigator. 75 trial protocols were included in the analysis. Protocols included a mean of 32/51 (63%) SPIRIT recommendations (range 16–41, SD 5.62) and 11/33 (33%) PRO-specific items (range 4–18, SD 3.56). Over half (61%) of the PRO items were incomplete. Protocols containing a primary PRO included slightly more PRO checklist items (mean 14/33 (43%)). PRO protocol content was not associated with general protocol completeness; thus, protocols judged as relatively ‘complete’ using SPIRIT were still likely to have omitted a large proportion of PRO checklist items. Conclusions The PRO components of HTA clinical trial protocols require improvement. Information on the PRO rationale/hypothesis, data collection methods, training and management was often absent. This low compliance is unsurprising; evidence shows existing PRO guidance for protocol developers remains difficult to access and lacks consistency. Study findings suggest there are a number of PRO protocol checklist items that are not fully addressed by the current SPIRIT statement. We therefore advocate the development of consensus-based supplementary guidelines, aimed at improving the completeness and quality of PRO content in clinical trial protocols.
    PLoS ONE 10/2014; 9(10):e110229. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0110229 · 3.53 Impact Factor

Preview (2 Sources)

Download
1 Download
Available from

Jennifer Tetzlaff