Challenges in the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting in randomized clinical trial studies: A systematic review

Adaptive designs in clinical trials: a systematic review-part I

BACKGROUND

Adaptive designs (ADs) are intended to make clinical trials more flexible, offering efficiency and potentially cost-saving benefits. Despite a large number of statistical methods in the literature on different adaptations to trials, the characteristics, advantages and limitations of such designs remain unfamiliar to large parts of the clinical and research community. This systematic review provides an overview of the use of ADs in published clinical trials (Part I). A follow-up (Part II) will compare the application of AD in trials in adult and pediatric studies, to provide real-world examples and recommendations for the child health community.

METHODS

Published studies from 2010 to April 2020 were searched in the following databases: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (Ovid). Clinical trial protocols, reports, and a secondary analyses using AD were included. We excluded trial registrations and interventions other than drugs or vaccines to align with regulatory guidance. Data from the published literature on study characteristics, types of adaptations, statistical analysis, stopping boundaries, logistical challenges, operational considerations and ethical considerations were extracted and summarized herein.

RESULTS

Out of 23,886 retrieved studies, 317 publications of adaptive trials, 267 (84.2%) trial reports, and 50 (15.8%) study protocols), were included. The most frequent disease was oncology (168/317, 53%). Most trials included only adult participants (265, 83.9%),16 trials (5.4%) were limited to only children and 28 (8.9%) were for both children and adults, 8 trials did not report the ages of the included populations. Some studies reported using more than one adaptation (there were 390 reported adaptations in 317 clinical trial reports). Most trials were early in drug development (phase I, II (276/317, 87%). Dose-finding designs were used in the highest proportion of the included trials (121/317, 38.2 %). Adaptive randomization (53/317, 16.7%), with drop-the-losers (or pick-the-winner) designs specifically reported in 29 trials (9.1%) and seamless phase 2-3 design was reported in 27 trials (8.5%). Continual reassessment methods (60/317, 18.9%) and group sequential design (47/317, 14.8%) were also reported. Approximately two-thirds of trials used frequentist statistical methods (203/309, 64%), while Bayesian methods were reported in 24% (75/309) of included trials.

CONCLUSION

This review provides a comprehensive report of methodological features in adaptive clinical trials reported between 2010 and 2020. Adaptation details were not uniformly reported, creating limitations in interpretation and generalizability. Nevertheless, implementation of existing reporting guidelines on ADs and the development of novel educational strategies that address the scientific, operational challenges and ethical considerations can help in the clinical trial community to decide on when and how to implement ADs in clinical trials. STUDY PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-018-2934-7 .

The association between research funding status and clinical research papers’ citation impact in Japan: A cross-sectional bibliometric study

Introduction

Studies have not sufficiently clarified the differences in citation impact between funded and non-funded clinical research papers. Hence, this study seeks to evaluate the relation between research funding status and clinical research papers’ citation impact in different research fields using multiple evaluation indices.

Methods

In this cross-sectional bibliometric study, clinical research papers published by core clinical research hospitals in Japan were compared retrospectively in terms of times cited (TC), category normalized citation impact (CNCI), citation percentile (CP), journal impact factor (JIF), the Software to Identify, Manage, and Analyze Scientific Publications (SIGAPS) category, and whether they were the funded clinical research. The association between research funding status or the SIGAPS category and CNCI ≥ 2 was analyzed using logistic regression analysis.

Results

11 core clinical research hospitals published 553 clinical research papers, of which 120 were non-funded and 433 were funded (public institution-funded and industry-funded). The study found that funded clinical research papers (public institution-funded and industry-funded) had significantly higher TC, CNCI, CP, and JIF than non-funded ones [TC: 8 (3–17) vs. 14 (8–31), p < 0.001; CNCI: 0.53 (0.19–0.97) vs. 0.87 (0.45–1.85), p < 0.001; CP: 51.9 (24.48–70.42) vs. 66.7 (40.53–88.01), p < 0.001; JIF: 2.59 (1.90–3.84) vs. 2.93 (2.09–4.20) p = 0.008], while the proportion of A or B rank clinical research papers of the SIGAPS category was not significantly different between the two groups (30.0 vs. 34.9%, p = 0.318). In the logistic regression analysis, having a CNCI ≥ 2 was significantly associated with research funding (public institution-funded and industry-funded) and publication in A or B rank journals of the SIGAPS category [research funding: Estimate 2.169, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.153–4.083, p = 0.016; SIGAPS category A/B: Estimate 6.126, 95% CI 3.889–9.651, p < 0.001].

Conclusion

Analysis via multiple indicators including CNCI and the SIGAPS category, which allows for a comparison of the papers’ citation impact in different research fields, found a positive relation between research funding status and the citation impact of clinical research papers.