A framework for clinical and translational research in the era of rigor and reproducibility

Waste not, want not: call to action for spinal manipulative therapy researchers

BACKGROUND

Research waste is defined as research outcomes with no or minimal societal benefits. It is a widespread problem in the healthcare field. Four primary sources of research waste have been defined: (1) irrelevant or low priority research questions, (2) poor design or methodology, (3) lack of publication, and (4) biased or inadequate reporting. This commentary, which was developed by a multidisciplinary group of researchers with spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) research expertise, discusses waste in SMT research and provides suggestions to improve future research.

MAIN TEXT

This commentary examines common sources of waste in SMT research, focusing on design and methodological issues, by drawing on prior research and examples from clinical and mechanistic SMT studies. Clinical research is dominated by small studies and studies with a high risk of bias. This problem is compounded by systematic reviews that pool heterogenous data from varying populations, settings, and application of SMT. Research focusing on the mechanisms of SMT often fails to address the clinical relevance of mechanisms, relies on very short follow-up periods, and has inadequate control for contextual factors.

CONCLUSIONS

This call to action is directed to researchers in the field of SMT. It is critical that the SMT research community act to improve the way research is designed, conducted, and disseminated. We present specific key action points and resources, which should enhance the quality and usefulness of future SMT research.

Consolidated guidance for behavioral intervention pilot and feasibility studies

BACKGROUND

In the behavioral sciences, conducting pilot and/or feasibility studies (PFS) is a key step that provides essential information used to inform the design, conduct, and implementation of a larger-scale trial. There are more than 160 published guidelines, reporting checklists, frameworks, and recommendations related to PFS. All of these publications offer some form of guidance on PFS, but many focus on one or a few topics. This makes it difficult for researchers wanting to gain a broader understanding of all the relevant and important aspects of PFS and requires them to seek out multiple sources of information, which increases the risk of missing key considerations to incorporate into their PFS. The purpose of this study was to develop a consolidated set of considerations for the design, conduct, implementation, and reporting of PFS for interventions conducted in the behavioral sciences.

METHODS

To develop this consolidation, we undertook a review of the published guidance on PFS in combination with expert consensus (via a Delphi study) from the authors who wrote such guidance to inform the identified considerations. A total of 161 PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations were identified via a review of recently published behavioral intervention PFS and backward/forward citation tracking of a well-known PFS literature (e.g., CONSORT Ext. for PFS). Authors of all 161 PFS publications were invited to complete a three-round Delphi survey, which was used to guide the creation of a consolidated list of considerations to guide the design, conduct, and reporting of PFS conducted by researchers in the behavioral sciences.

RESULTS

A total of 496 authors were invited to take part in the three-round Delphi survey (round 1, N = 46; round 2, N = 24; round 3, N = 22). A set of twenty considerations, broadly categorized into six themes (intervention design, study design, conduct of trial, implementation of intervention, statistical analysis, and reporting) were generated from a review of the 161 PFS-related publications as well as a synthesis of feedback from the three-round Delphi process. These 20 considerations are presented alongside a supporting narrative for each consideration as well as a crosswalk of all 161 publications aligned with each consideration for further reading.

CONCLUSION

We leveraged expert opinion from researchers who have published PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations on a wide range of topics and distilled this knowledge into a valuable and universal resource for researchers conducting PFS. Researchers may use these considerations alongside the previously published literature to guide decisions about all aspects of PFS, with the hope of creating and disseminating interventions with broad public health impact.

Expert Perspectives on Pilot and Feasibility Studies: A Delphi Study and Consolidation of Considerations for Behavioral Interventions

Background

In the behavioral sciences, conducting pilot and/or feasibility studies (PFS) is a key step that provides essential information used to inform the design, conduct, and implementation of a larger-scale trial. There are more than 160 published guidelines, reporting checklists, frameworks, and recommendations related to PFS. All of these publications offer some form of guidance on PFS, but many focus on one or a few topics. This makes it difficult for researchers wanting to gain a broader understanding of all the relevant and important aspects of PFS and requires them to seek out multiple sources of information, which increases the risk of missing key considerations to incorporate into their PFS. The purpose of this study was to develop a consolidated set of considerations for the design, conduct, implementation, and reporting of PFS for interventions conducted in the behavioral sciences.

Methods

To develop this consolidation, we undertook a review of the published guidance on PFS in combination with expert consensus (via a Delphi study) from the authors who wrote such guidance to inform the identified considerations. A total of 161 PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations were identified via a review of recently published behavioral intervention PFS and backward/forward citation tracking of well-know PFS literature (e.g., CONSORT Ext. for PFS). Authors of all 161 PFS publications were invited to complete a three-round Delphi survey, which was used to guide the creation of a consolidated list of considerations to guide the design, conduct, and reporting of PFS conducted by researchers in the behavioral sciences.

Results

A total of 496 authors were invited to take part in the Delphi survey, 50 (10.1%) of which completed all three rounds, representing 60 (37.3%) of the 161 identified PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations. A set of twenty considerations, broadly categorized into six themes (Intervention Design, Study Design, Conduct of Trial, Implementation of Intervention, Statistical Analysis and Reporting) were generated from a review of the 161 PFS-related publications as well as a synthesis of feedback from the three-round Delphi process. These 20 considerations are presented alongside a supporting narrative for each consideration as well as a crosswalk of all 161 publications aligned with each consideration for further reading.

Conclusion

We leveraged expert opinion from researchers who have published PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations on a wide range of topics and distilled this knowledge into a valuable and universal resource for researchers conducting PFS. Researchers may use these considerations alongside the previously published literature to guide decisions about all aspects of PFS, with the hope of creating and disseminating interventions with broad public health impact.

REPCAN: Guideline for REporting Population-based CANcer Registry Data

Background: The objective of this study was to develop a guideline on how to report result of a population-based cancer registry. Methods: The guideline's development involved a core working committee and a scientific committee comprising experts from diverse domains. The process comprised three steps: 1) a comprehensive review of existing tools and guidelines and the development of the initial draft of the guideline based on a review of literature, 2) refinement items through several rounds of focus group discussion among the core group, and development initial draft, and 3) Evaluation of the initial draft by scientific committee members. Items in the guideline were organized to accommodate reports of population-based cancer registries as a scientific manuscript. Results: The core committee developed 47 items distributed in the major heading of a scientific manuscript presented as a checklist. The evaluation of the scientific committee led to a consensus on the majority of the items included in the checklist. Among 10 committee members, 7 provided unreserved approval, validating each item's necessity, applicability, and comprehensibility in the checklist. Feedback from the remaining 3 members was carefully analyzed and integrated to enhance the guideline's robustness. Incorporating feedback, a first final draft was presented in a meeting of scientific and core working committee members. Collaborative discussion ensured clarity of expression for each items and a final checklist was developed. Conclusion: The guideline abbreviated as REPCAN offers a standardized framework for reporting population-based cancer registry, fostering transparency, comparability, and comprehensive data presentation. The guideline encourages flexibility while promoting comprehensive and robust reporting practices.

Program management challenges of clinical studies: A qualitative critical assessment

Background

Organization, coordination, and discipline are required to complete any intricate operation, conducting a clinical experiment is no different. There are usually many moving components, from designing a plan, to conveying changes, to calculating risk, and excellent project management which are necessary to guarantee the study works successfully. Past evidence suggested that roadblock at any level hampers the progress of the clinical research. Understanding program management challenges hence becomes the key for timely and effective completion of clinical research.

Methods

A cross-sectional qualitative enquiry involving stakeholders in clinical research program management. We used problem tree-based approach wherein we documented views of various stakeholders to understand the interaction, interdependence, and related interventional needs of bottlenecks for long-term research gains using modern management methods applicable in clinical settings. The best fit approach was also explored to augment maximum benefit in limited resource settings.

Results

Non-alignment with state policy aims, a lack of effective coordination and communication among members, challenging logistic management, limited use of technology, a need for training, and an inefficient monitoring mechanism were among the major issues highlighted, and solutions were proposed.

Conclusion

Study concludes that an Integrated Process-cum-Timeline-Based Management strategy with multisectoral emphasis is ideal for program management of clinical projects.

Banking on a new understanding: translational opportunities from veterinary biobanks

Current advances in geroscience are due in part to the discovery of biomarkers with high predictive ability in short-lived laboratory animals such as flies and mice. These model species, however, do not always adequately reflect human physiology and disease, highlighting the need for a more comprehensive and relevant model of human aging. Domestic dogs offer a solution to this obstacle, as they share many aspects not only of the physiological and pathological trajectories of their human counterpart, but also of their environment. Furthermore, they age at a considerably faster rate. Studying aging in the companion dog provides an opportunity to better understand the biological and environmental determinants of healthy lifespan in our pets, and to translate those findings to human aging. Biobanking, the systematic collection, processing, storage, and distribution of biological material and associated data has contributed to basic, clinical, and translational research by streamlining the management of high-quality biospecimens for biomarker discovery and validation. In this review, we discuss how veterinary biobanks can support research on aging, particularly when integrated into large-scale longitudinal studies. As an example of this concept, we introduce the Dog Aging Project Biobank.

Translational Research in Audiology: Presence in the Literature

Translational research is a process that focuses on advancing basic research-based clinical solutions and is characterized by a structured process accelerating the implementation of scientific discoveries in healthcare. Translational research originated in oncology but has spread to other disciplines in recent decades. A translational project may refer to pharmacological research, the development of non-pharmacological therapies, or to disease monitoring processes. Its stages are divided into basic research focused on the clinical problem (T0), testing the developed means in humans (T1), conducting trials with patients (T2), implementation and dissemination of successful approaches (T3), and improving community health (T4). Many audiological studies are translational in nature. Accordingly, this scoping review aimed to evaluate the use of the terms "translational audiology" and "translational research in audiology" in the literature and examine the goals of the identified studies. PubMed and Web of Science search identified only two publications meeting the search criteria. We conclude that identifying translational audiological studies in the literature may be hampered by the lack of use of the terms "translational audiology" or "translational research". We suggest using these terms when describing translational work in audiology, with a view to facilitating the identification of this type of research and credit it appropriately.

The Characteristics of Clinical Studies Submitted to the Saudi Food and Drug Authority from 2009 until 2020

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials are crucial in contemporary evidence-based medicine for discovering new treatments for diseases. Their registration in a registry increases the transparency in the dissemination of knowledge about clinical research. It is essential to understand the activity of clinical trials in a country, thus identifying research gaps.

OBJECTIVE

This study, therefore, aims to describe the clinical trial activity since the inception of clinical trials' administration and national clinical trials' registry within the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA).

METHOD

A descriptive study was conducted by reviewing all clinical studies that have been registered during 2009 and June 2020. The inclusion criterion was all phases of the clinical trials registered in the national registry during that period. Data analysis was done using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Since 2009, 352 studies have been registered. However, a total of 333 studies with complete data was included in the analysis. A total of 80 sponsors funded the clinical studies in the KSA. The majority of the clinical studies are funded by multinational pharmaceutical companies. Oncology (13.81%) and diabetes (11.71%) were the most common therapeutic areas and constituted the largest proportion of the overall studies. 44% were phase 4 and 40% were phase 3 studies.

CONCLUSION

With a population approaching 34 million, the number of clinical trials in the KSA is not sufficient. Since the inception of the clinical trial's administration and SCTR, the emphasis has been on phase 3 and phase 4 clinical studies. The most studied therapeutic areas were oncology and diabetes. Many clinical studies in the KSA were sponsored by multinational pharmaceutical companies.