Methodological Characteristics of Clinical Trials: Impact of Mandatory Trial Registration
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18433/jpps30360Abstract
Purpose: Numerous studies across multiple specialties have evaluated the impact of trial registration on quality of study reports and found significant improvements over several domains. However, the impact of mandatory trial registration on the quality of clinical trial protocols remains hitherto unexplored. Methods: We carried out a retrospective cohort study of clinical trial applications submitted to drug regulatory authority of India for initial review with the objective of comparing methodological characteristics of their protocols. Since trial registration was made mandatory in the country in June 2009, we selected two study periods as between January 2007 to May 2009 (Period I) and July 2009 to December 2011 (Period II). Seventy-five protocols were randomly selected using a computer-generated list for each study period, making a total of 150 protocols. Data on twelve key methodological characteristics were collected including clearly defined primary outcomes, randomization, blinding, use of control group, statistical methods, handling of withdrawals amongst others. Results: More than 3/4th of the trial applications in the two study periods were for new chemical entities and nearly 90% were pharmaceutical industry sponsored studies. Comparing the period before and after implementation of mandatory trial registration, description of clearly defined trial outcomes improved from nearly 42% to 80% (p<0.001), sample size justifications increased from 38% to 70% (p<0.001) and use of allocation concealment improved from 24% to 49% (p=0.001). Marked improvement was also noted for blinding, description of statistical methods and handling of withdrawals and dropouts. Remaining characteristics did not change significantly between the two study periods. The mean cumulative scores for the study protocols improved significantly from 7± 0.296 in the first period to 8.93± 0.346 (p<0.001) in the second period. Conclusions: Our study found a significant improvement in the methodological quality characteristics of the protocols particularly in elements related to minimization of bias and statistical methods, which could be attributed to mandatory trial registration. Overall, the significant improvement was limited to global clinical trials, and room for improvement was noted for two quality characteristics – proportion of randomized studies and trials adequately describing the generation of allocation sequence.Downloads
References
Most Experimental Drugs are Tested Offshore–Raising Concerns about Data. Available from: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/most-experimental-drugs-are-tested-offshore-raising-concerns-about-data/
Yang YT, Chen B, Bennett CL. Offshore Pharmaceutical Trials: Evidence, Economics, and Ethics. Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes. 2018 Jun 5;2(3):226–8.
Kamat VR. Fast, cheap, and out of control? Speculations and ethical concerns in the conduct of outsourced clinical trials in India. Soc Sci Med 1982. 2014 Mar;104:48–55.
Califf RM, Morse MA, Wittes J, Goodman SN, Nelson DK, DeMets DL, et al. Toward protecting the safety of participants in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 2003 Jun 1;24(3):256–71.
Lancet T. Strengthening the credibility of clinical research. The Lancet. 2010 Apr 10;375(9722):1225.
Al-Marzouki S, Roberts I, Evans S, Marshall T. Selective reporting in clinical trials: analysis of trial protocols accepted by The Lancet. The Lancet. 2008 Jul 19;372(9634):201.
Weston J, Dwan K, Altman D, Clarke M, Gamble C, Groves T, et al. Selective reporting in clinical trials - an examination of discrepancy rates in pre-specified and reported outcomes in articles submitted to the BMJ. Trials. 2015 Nov 16;16(Suppl 2):O72.
Raghav KPS, Mahajan S, Yao JC, Hobbs BP, Berry DA, Pentz RD, et al. From Protocols to Publications: A Study in Selective Reporting of Outcomes in Randomized Trials in Oncology. J Clin Oncol. 2015 Nov 1;33(31):3583–90.
Clinical Trial Registry - India [Internet]. Available from: http://ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/login.php
Important Notice for all Trial Registrants [Internet]. Available from: http://ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/alert.php
Krleza-Jerić K, Chan A-W, Dickersin K, Sim I, Grimshaw J, Gluud C. Principles for international registration of protocol information and results from human trials of health related interventions: Ottawa statement (part 1). BMJ. 2005 Apr 23;330(7497):956–8.
Viergever RF, Karam G, Reis A, Ghersi D. The Quality of Registration of Clinical Trials: Still a Problem. PLOS ONE. 2014 Jan 10;9(1):e84727.
Reveiz L, Cortés-Jofré M, Asenjo Lobos C, Nicita G, Ciapponi A, Garcìa-Dieguez M, et al. Influence of trial registration on reporting quality of randomized trials: Study from highest ranked journals. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010 Nov 1;63(11):1216–22.
Lu Y, Yao Q, Gu J, Shen C. Methodological reporting of randomized clinical trials in respiratory research in 2010. Respir Care. 2013 Sep;58(9):1546–51.
Jull A, Aye PS. Endorsement of the CONSORT guidelines, trial registration, and the quality of reporting randomised controlled trials in leading nursing journals: A cross-sectional analysis. Int J Nurs Stud. 2015 Jun;52(6):1071–9.
Shanthanna H, Kaushal A, Mbuagbaw L, Couban R, Busse J, Thabane L. A cross-sectional study of the reporting quality of pilot or feasibility trials in high-impact anesthesia journals. Can J Anesth Can Anesth. 2018 Nov 1;65(11):1180–95.
Farquhar CM, Showell MG, Showell EAE, Beetham P, Baak N, Mourad S, et al. Clinical trial registration was not an indicator for low risk of bias. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017 Apr 1;84:47–53.
Tharyan P, George AT, Kirubakaran R, Barnabas JP. Reporting of methods was better in the Clinical Trials Registry-India than in Indian journal publications. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013 Jan 1;66(1):10–22.
Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gøtzsche PC, Devereaux PJ, et al. CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010 Mar 24;340:c869.
General consideration for clinical trials [Internet]. Available from: http://www.ich.org/fileadmin/Public_Web_Site/ICH_Products/Guidelines/Efficacy/E8/Step4/E8_Guideline.pdf.
Statistical principles for clinical trials [Internet]. Available from: http://www.emea.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2009/09/WC500002928.pdf.
CTRI Dataset [Internet]. Available from: http://ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/CTRI_Dataset_and_Description.pdf.
Good Clinical Practices (GCP) for clinical research in India [Internet]. Available from: http://cdsco.nic.in/html/GCP1.htm.
Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, et al.. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials. 1996;17(1):1–12.
Chan A-W, Hróbjartsson A. Promoting public access to clinical trial protocols: challenges and recommendations. Trials. 2018 Feb 17;19(1):116.
Falagas ME, Pitsouni EI, Bliziotis IA. Trends in the methodological quality of published randomized controlled trials on antibacterial agents. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2008 Jun;65(6):942–54.
Berendt L, Håkansson C, Bach KF, Andreasen PB, Petersen LG, Andersen E, et al. Methodological characteristics of academic clinical drug trials – a retrospective cohort study of applications to the Danish Medicines Agency 1993–2005. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2010 Jul 15;70(5):729–35.
Perlmutter AS, Tran V-T, Dechartres A, Ravaud P. Statistical controversies in clinical research: comparison of primary outcomes in protocols, public clinical-trial registries and publications: the example of oncology trials. Ann Oncol Off J Eur Soc Med Oncol. 2017 01;28(4):688–95.
Hopewell S, Dutton S, Yu L-M, Chan A-W, Altman DG. The quality of reports of randomised trials in 2000 and 2006: comparative study of articles indexed in PubMed. BMJ. 2010 Mar 24;340:c723.
Reveiz L, Chan A-W, Krleža-Jerić K, Granados CE, Pinart M, Etxeandia I, et al. Reporting of Methodologic Information on Trial Registries for Quality Assessment: A Study of Trial Records Retrieved from the WHO Search Portal. PLoS ONE [Internet]. 2010 Aug 31 [cited 2018 Nov 6];5(8). Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2930852/
Lee PH, Tse ACY. The quality of the reported sample size calculations in randomized controlled trials indexed in PubMed. Eur J Intern Med. 2017 May 1;40:16–21.
Abdulatif M, Mukhtar A, Obayah G. Pitfalls in reporting sample size calculation in randomized controlled trials published in leading anaesthesia journals: a systematic review. Br J Anaesth. 2015 Nov 1;115(5):699–707.
Charan J, Saxena D. Reporting of various methodological and statistical parameters in negative studies published in prominent Indian Medical Journals: A systematic review. J Postgrad Med. 2014 Oct 1;60(4):362.
Copsey B, Thompson JY, Vadher K, Ali U, Dutton SJ, Fitzpatrick R, et al. Sample size calculations are poorly conducted and reported in many randomized trials of hip and knee osteoarthritis: results of a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018 Dec 1;104:52–61.
Koletsi D, Fleming PS, Seehra J, Bagos PG, Pandis N. Are Sample Sizes Clear and Justified in RCTs Published in Dental Journals? PLOS ONE. 2014 Jan 21;9(1):e85949.
Little RJ, D’Agostino R, Cohen ML, Dickersin K, Emerson SS, Farrar JT, et al. The Prevention and Treatment of Missing Data in Clinical Trials. N Engl J Med. 2012 Oct 4;367(14):1355–60.
Bell ML, Fiero M, Horton NJ, Hsu C-H. Handling missing data in RCTs; a review of the top medical journals. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014 Nov 19;14(1):118.
Colditz GA, Miller JN, Mosteller F. How study design affects outcomes in comparisons of therapy. I: Medical. Stat Med. 1989 Apr;8(4):441–54.
Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA. 1995 Feb 1;273(5):408–12.
Clark L, Fairhurst C, Torgerson DJ. Allocation concealment in randomised controlled trials: are we getting better? BMJ. 2016 Nov 17;355:i5663.
To MJ, Jones J, Emara M, Jadad AR. Are Reports of Randomized Controlled Trials Improving over Time? A Systematic Review of 284 Articles Published in High-Impact General and Specialized Medical Journals. PLOS ONE. 2013 Dec 31;8(12):e84779.
Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.0.1. The cochrane collaboration. Available at www.cochrane-handbook.org.
Reveiz L, Bonfill X, Glujovsky D, Pinzon CE, Asenjo-Lobos C, Cortes M, et al. Trial registration in Latin America and the Caribbean’s: study of randomized trials published in 2010. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012 May;65(5):482–7.
De Angelis C, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, Haug C, Hoey J, Horton R, et al. Clinical Trial Registration: A Statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. N Engl J Med. 2004 Sep 16;351(12):1250–1.
History, Policies, and Laws - ClinicalTrials.gov [Internet]. [cited 2018 Nov 6]. Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/about-site/history#CongressPassesLawFDAAA
Chan A-W, Tetzlaff JM, Altman DG, Laupacis A, Gøtzsche PC, Krleža-Jerić K, et al. SPIRIT 2013 Statement: Defining Standard Protocol Items for Clinical Trials. Ann Intern Med. 2013 Feb 5;158(3):200–7.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This is an open access journal with free of charge non-commercial download. At the time of submission, authors will be asked to transfer the copyright to the accepted article to the Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences. The author may purchase the copyright for $500 upon which he/she will have the exclusive copyright to the article. Nevertheless, acceptance of a manuscript for publication in the Journal is with the authors' approval of the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons copyright license Creative Common license (Attribution-ShareAlike) License for non-commercial uses.
CLOCKSS system has permission to collect, preserve, and serve this Archival Unit.
