Perfil de políticas destinatarias

Dolley, Shawn; Hartman, Dan; Norman, Thea; Hudson, Ian

doi:10.48060/tghn.14

Cited by 1 publication

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The number and diversity of issues raised in our analysis lends further weight to previous recommendations calling for research sponsors to take an active role in ensuring their trials undergo a rigorous process of scienti c review (5), particularly if those trials are not likely to receive such a review via other mechanisms (2).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 71%

“…ICH and NHS templates informed the organization of this hierarchy. 5 Topics that had only a single subtopic and accounted for 2% or more of recommendations were subdivided into more speci c subtopics (informed by subheadings within ICH protocol guidance) to increase granularity. 6 One topic ('Intervention/Dose') initially had only three subtopics, but as it accounted for 10% of recommendations overall, 'Intervention/Dose' was subdivided into additional subtopics to provide more detail.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Review processes prior to the start of a trial provide an opportunity to enhance informativeness. Post-funding scienti c reviews of individual trials differ from the more typical pre-funding peer review process (5). Peer reviews of prospective research are well-established, as well as ethics and regulatory reviews.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Scientific Review of Protocols to Enhance Informativeness of Global Health Clinical Trials

Burford,

Norman,

Dolley

2024

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Trial informativeness describes the likelihood of a clinical trial to have a meaningful impact on clinical practice, research or policy decisions. A dedicated scientific review process for protocols at the post-funding stage is not common, yet is an opportunity to enhance trial informativeness. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF), as one of the largest non-industry funders of clinical trials in the world, created a group called Design, Analyze, Communicate (DAC). DAC began expert scientific reviews of a sample of grantees’ trial protocols in 2019. We categorized and quantified areas of scientific review feedback provided for 52 clinical trial protocols submitted to DAC over a 3-year period. Knowledge of feedback themes offers insight into potential areas of trial design weakness, which may be helpful in considering the types of support best offered in the early stages of trial design for global health clinical trials. Methods We conducted a retrospective analysis of protocol review feedback provided by DAC to grantees. Protocols were submitted to BMGF between 2020–2022. A qualitative content analysis was conducted by developing a codebook of clinical trial methodology topics and subtopics, and systematically coding free-text review feedback. Manual text classification of individual feedback statements enabled quantification and frequency analysis of review feedback. Results A total of 1537 individual recommendations were made across all 52 protocols. The median number of recommendations per protocol was 28 (range: 13 to 52), covering a wide range of issues related to clinical trial design, implementation, analysis, and impact. Nearly half of all recommendations (47%) were characterized by the review team as high priority. The areas with the highest frequency of recommendations were Statistics and Data Analysis, Trial Procedures, and Intervention/Dose. Conclusions This study provides a taxonomy of scientific review feedback topic areas that can be used to categorize clinical trial design topics. The high number of recommendations per protocol review across several distinct topic areas highlights the need for a scientific review to enhance informativeness of global health clinical trials. This review must take place prior to trial initiation and review teams should include statistical and trial design expertise with additional expertise tailored to trial/intervention type and phase.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 71%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%