Informed consent and trial prioritization for clinical studies during the COVID-19 pandemic. Stakeholder experiences and viewpoints

BACKGROUND

Very little is known about the practice-oriented challenges and potential response strategies for effective and efficient translation of informed consent and study prioritization in times of a pandemic. This stakeholder interview study aimed to identify the full spectrum of challenges and potential response strategies for informed consent and study prioritization in a pandemic setting.

METHODS

We performed semi-structured interviews with German stakeholders involved in clinical research during the COVID-19 pandemic. We continued sampling and thematic text analysis of interview transcripts until thematic saturation of challenges and potential response strategies was reached.

RESULTS

We conducted 21 interviews with investigators, oversight bodies, funders and research support units. For the first topic informed consent we identified three main themes: consent challenges, impact of consent challenges on clinical research, and potential strategies for consent challenges. For the second topic prioritization of clinical studies, we identified two main themes: perceived benefit of prioritization and potential strategies for prioritization. All main themes are further specified with subthemes. A supplementary table provides original quotes from the interviews for all subthemes.

DISCUSSION

Potential response strategies for challenges with informed consent and study prioritization partly share common ground. High quality procedures for study prioritization, for example, seem to be a core response strategy in dealing with informed consent challenges. Especially in a research environment with particularly high uncertainty regarding potential treatment effects and further limitations for valid informed consent should the selection of clinical trials be very well justified from a scientific, medical, and ethics viewpoint.

[Nationally standardized broad consent in practice: initial experiences, current developments, and critical assessment]

BACKGROUND

The digitalization in the healthcare sector promises a secondary use of patient data in the sense of a learning healthcare system. For this, the Medical Informatics Initiative's (MII) Consent Working Group has created an ethical and legal basis with standardized consent documents. This paper describes the systematically monitored introduction of these documents at the MII sites.

METHODS

The monitoring of the introduction included regular online surveys, an in-depth analysis of the introduction processes at selected sites, and an assessment of the documents in use. In addition, inquiries and feedback from a large number of stakeholders were evaluated.

RESULTS

The online surveys showed that 27 of the 32 sites have gradually introduced the consent documents productively, with a current total of 173,289 consents. The analysis of the implementation procedures revealed heterogeneous organizational conditions at the sites. The requirements of various stakeholders were met by developing and providing supplementary versions of the consent documents and additional information materials.

DISCUSSION

The introduction of the MII consent documents at the university hospitals creates a uniform legal basis for the secondary use of patient data. However, the comprehensive implementation within the sites remains challenging. Therefore, minimum requirements for patient information and supplementary recommendations for best practice must be developed. The further development of the national legal framework for research will not render the participation and transparency mechanisms developed here obsolete.

Dissemination of Registered COVID-19 Clinical Trials (DIRECCT): a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

The results of clinical trials should be completely and rapidly reported during public health emergencies such as COVID-19. This study aimed to examine when, and where, the results of COVID-19 clinical trials were disseminated throughout the first 18 months of the pandemic.

METHODS

Clinical trials for COVID-19 treatment or prevention were identified from the WHO ICTRP database. All interventional trials with a registered completion date ≤ 30 June 2021 were included. Trial results, published as preprints, journal articles, or registry results, were located using automated and manual techniques across PubMed, Google Scholar, Google, EuropePMC, CORD-19, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and clinical trial registries. Our main analysis reports the rate of dissemination overall and per route, and the time from registered completion to results using Kaplan-Meier methods, with additional subgroup and sensitivity analyses reported.

RESULTS

Overall, 1643 trials with completion dates ranging from 46 to 561 days prior to the start of results searches were included. The cumulative probability of reporting was 12.5% at 3 months from completion, 21.6% at 6 months, and 32.8% at 12 months. Trial results were most commonly disseminated in journals (n = 278 trials, 69.2%); preprints were available for 194 trials (48.3%), 86 (44.3%) of which converted to a full journal article. Trials completed earlier in the pandemic were reported more rapidly than those later in the pandemic, and those involving ivermectin were more rapidly reported than other common interventions. Results were robust to various sensitivity analyses except when considering only trials in a "completed" status on the registry, which substantially increased reporting rates. Poor trial registry data on completion status and dates limits the precision of estimates.

CONCLUSIONS

COVID-19 trials saw marginal increases in reporting rates compared to standard practice; most registered trials failed to meet even the 12-month non-pandemic standard. Preprints were common, complementing journal publication; however, registries were underutilized for rapid reporting. Maintaining registry data enables accurate representation of clinical research; failing to do so undermines these registries' use for public accountability and analysis. Addressing rapid reporting and registry data quality must be emphasized at global, national, and institutional levels.

Frequency of multiple changes to prespecified primary outcomes of clinical trials completed between 2009 and 2017 in German university medical centers: A meta-research study

BACKGROUND

Clinical trial registries allow assessment of deviations of published trials from their protocol, which may indicate a considerable risk of bias. However, since entries in many registries can be updated at any time, deviations may go unnoticed. We aimed to assess the frequency of changes to primary outcomes in different historical versions of registry entries, and how often they would go unnoticed if only deviations between published trial reports and the most recent registry entry are assessed.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We analyzed the complete history of changes of registry entries in all 1746 randomized controlled trials completed at German university medical centers between 2009 and 2017, with published results up to 2022, that were registered in ClinicalTrials.gov or the German WHO primary registry (German Clinical Trials Register; DRKS). Data were retrieved on 24 January 2022. We assessed deviations between registry entries and publications in a random subsample of 292 trials. We determined changes of primary outcomes (1) between different versions of registry entries at key trial milestones, (2) between the latest registry entry version and the results publication, and (3) changes that occurred after trial start with no change between latest registry entry version and publication (so that assessing the full history of changes is required for detection of changes). We categorized changes as major if primary outcomes were added, dropped, changed to secondary outcomes, or secondary outcomes were turned into primary outcomes. We also assessed (4) the proportion of publications transparently reporting changes and (5) characteristics associated with changes. Of all 1746 trials, 23% (n = 393) had a primary outcome change between trial start and latest registry entry version, with 8% (n = 142) being major changes, that is, primary outcomes were added, dropped, changed to secondary outcomes, or secondary outcomes were turned into primary outcomes. Primary outcomes in publications were different from the latest registry entry version in 41% of trials (120 of the 292 sampled trials; 95% confidence interval (CI) [35%, 47%]), with major changes in 18% (54 of 292; 95% CI [14%, 23%]). Overall, 55% of trials (161 of 292; 95% CI [49%, 61%]) had primary outcome changes at any timepoint over the course of a trial, with 23% of trials (67 of 292; 95% CI [18%, 28%]) having major changes. Changes only within registry records, with no apparent discrepancy between latest registry entry version and publication, were observed in 14% of trials (41 of 292; 95% CI [10%, 19%]), with 4% (13 of 292; 95% CI [2%, 7%]) being major changes. One percent of trials with a change reported this in their publication (2 of 161 trials; 95% CI [0%, 4%]). An exploratory logistic regression analysis indicated that trials were less likely to have a discrepant registry entry if they were registered more recently (odds ratio (OR) 0.74; 95% CI [0.69, 0.80]; p<0.001), were not registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (OR 0.41; 95% CI [0.23, 0.70]; p = 0.002), or were not industry-sponsored (OR 0.29; 95% CI [0.21, 0.41]; p<0.001). Key limitations include some degree of subjectivity in the categorization of outcome changes and inclusion of a single geographic region.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, we observed that changes to primary outcomes occur in 55% of trials, with 23% trials having major changes. They are rarely transparently reported in the results publication and often not visible in the latest registry entry version. More transparency is needed, supported by deeper analysis of registry entries to make these changes more easily recognizable. Protocol registration: Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/t3qva; amendment in https://osf.io/qtd2b).

Reporting of retrospective registration in clinical trial publications: a cross-sectional study of German trials

OBJECTIVE

Prospective registration has been widely implemented and accepted as a best practice in clinical research, but retrospective registration is still commonly found. We assessed to what extent retrospective registration is reported transparently in journal publications and investigated factors associated with transparent reporting.

DESIGN

We used a dataset of trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov or Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien, with a German University Medical Center as the lead centre, completed in 2009-2017, and with a corresponding peer-reviewed results publication. We extracted all registration statements from results publications of retrospectively registered trials and assessed whether they mention or justify the retrospective registration. We analysed associations of retrospective registration and reporting thereof with registration number reporting, International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) membership/-following and industry sponsorship using χ² or Fisher exact test.

RESULTS

In the dataset of 1927 trials with a corresponding results publication, 956 (53.7%) were retrospectively registered. Of those, 2.2% (21) explicitly report the retrospective registration in the abstract and 3.5% (33) in the full text. In 2.1% (20) of publications, authors provide an explanation for the retrospective registration in the full text. Registration numbers were significantly underreported in abstracts of retrospectively registered trials compared with prospectively registered trials. Publications in ICMJE member journals did not have statistically significantly higher rates of both prospective registration and disclosure of retrospective registration, and publications in journals claiming to follow ICMJE recommendations showed statistically significantly lower rates compared with non-ICMJE-following journals. Industry sponsorship of trials was significantly associated with higher rates of prospective registration, but not with transparent registration reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

Contrary to ICMJE guidance, retrospective registration is disclosed and explained only in a small number of retrospectively registered studies. Disclosure of the retrospective nature of the registration would require a brief statement in the manuscript and could be easily implemented by journals.

Should the governance of individual treatment attempts ("Individuelle Heilversuche") include praxis evaluation? Results from qualitative stakeholder interviews

INTRODUCTION

Individual treatment attempts (ITAs) are a German concept for the treatment of individual patients by physicians with nonstandard therapeutic approaches. Due to the lack of evidence, ITAs come with a high amount of uncertainty regarding the risk-benefit ratio. Despite the high uncertainty, no prospective review and no systematic retrospective evaluation of ITAs are required in Germany. Our objective was to explore stakeholders' attitudes toward the retrospective evaluation (monitoring) or prospective evaluation (review) of ITAs.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative interview study among relevant stakeholder groups. We used the SWOT framework to represent the stakeholders' attitudes. We applied content analysis to the recorded and transcribed interviews in MAXQDA.

RESULTS

Twenty interviewees participated and pointed to several arguments in favor of the retrospective evaluation of ITAs (e.g. knowledge gain about circumstances of ITAs). The interviewees expressed concerns regarding the validity and practical relevance of the evaluation results. The viewpoints on review addressed several contextual factors.

CONCLUSION

The current situation with a complete lack of evaluation insufficiently reflects safety concerns. German health policy decision makers should be more explicit about where and why evaluation is needed. Prospective and retrospective evaluations should be piloted in areas of ITAs with a particularly high uncertainty.

Institutional dashboards on clinical trial transparency for University Medical Centers: A case study

BACKGROUND

University Medical Centers (UMCs) must do their part for clinical trial transparency by fostering practices such as prospective registration, timely results reporting, and open access. However, research institutions are often unaware of their performance on these practices. Baseline assessments of these practices would highlight where there is room for change and empower UMCs to support improvement. We performed a status quo analysis of established clinical trial registration and reporting practices at German UMCs and developed a dashboard to communicate these baseline assessments with UMC leadership and the wider research community.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We developed and applied a semiautomated approach to assess adherence to established transparency practices in a cohort of interventional trials and associated results publications. Trials were registered in ClinicalTrials.gov or the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS), led by a German UMC, and reported as complete between 2009 and 2017. To assess adherence to transparency practices, we identified results publications associated to trials and applied automated methods at the level of registry data (e.g., prospective registration) and publications (e.g., open access). We also obtained summary results reporting rates of due trials registered in the EU Clinical Trials Register (EUCTR) and conducted at German UMCs from the EU Trials Tracker. We developed an interactive dashboard to display these results across all UMCs and at the level of single UMCs. Our study included and assessed 2,895 interventional trials led by 35 German UMCs. Across all UMCs, prospective registration increased from 33% (n = 58/178) to 75% (n = 144/193) for trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov and from 0% (n = 0/44) to 79% (n = 19/24) for trials registered in DRKS over the period considered. Of trials with a results publication, 38% (n = 714/1,895) reported the trial registration number in the publication abstract. In turn, 58% (n = 861/1,493) of trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov and 23% (n = 111/474) of trials registered in DRKS linked the publication in the registration. In contrast to recent increases in summary results reporting of drug trials in the EUCTR, 8% (n = 191/2,253) and 3% (n = 20/642) of due trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov and DRKS, respectively, had summary results in the registry. Across trial completion years, timely results reporting (within 2 years of trial completion) as a manuscript publication or as summary results was 41% (n = 1,198/2,892). The proportion of openly accessible trial publications steadily increased from 42% (n = 16/38) to 74% (n = 72/97) over the period considered. A limitation of this study is that some of the methods used to assess the transparency practices in this dashboard rely on registry data being accurate and up-to-date.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, we observed that it is feasible to assess and inform individual UMCs on their performance on clinical trial transparency in a reproducible and publicly accessible way. Beyond helping institutions assess how they perform in relation to mandates or their institutional policy, the dashboard may inform interventions to increase the uptake of clinical transparency practices and serve to evaluate the impact of these interventions.

Reporting of patient involvement: a mixed-methods analysis of current practice in health research publications using a targeted search strategy

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the extent and quality of patient involvement reporting in examples of current practice in health research.

DESIGN

Mixed-methods study. We used a targeted search strategy across three cohorts to identify health research publications that reported patient involvement: original research articles published in 2019 in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), articles listed in the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) database (2019), and articles citing the GRIPP2 (Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and Public) reporting checklist for patient involvement or a critical appraisal guideline for user involvement. Publications were coded according to three coding schemes: 'phase of involvement', the GRIPP2-Short Form (GRIPP2-SF) reporting checklist and the critical appraisal guideline.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The phase of the study in which patients were actively involved. For the BMJ sample, the proportion of publications that reported patient involvement. The quality of reporting based on the GRIPP2-SF reporting guideline. The quality of patient involvement based on the critical appraisal guideline. Quantitative and qualitative results are reported.

RESULTS

We included 86 publications that reported patient involvement. Patients were most frequently involved in study design (90% of publications, n=77), followed by study conduct (71%, n=61) and dissemination (42%, n=36). Reporting of patient involvement was often incomplete, for example, only 40% of publications (n=34) reported the aim of patient involvement. While the methods (57%, n=49) and results (59%, n=51) of involvement were reported more frequently, reporting was often unspecific and the influence of patients' input remained vague. Therefore, a systematic assessment of the quality and impact of patient involvement according to the critical appraisal guideline was not feasible across samples.

CONCLUSIONS

As patient involvement is increasingly seen as an integral part of the research process and requested by funding bodies, it is essential that researchers receive specific guidance on how to report patient involvement activities. Complete reporting builds the foundation for assessing the quality of patient involvement and its impact on research.

Empirical studies on how ethical recommendations are translated into practice: a cross-section study on scope and study objectives

BACKGROUND

Empirical research can become relevant for bioethics in at least two ways. First, by informing the development or refinement of ethical recommendations. Second, by evaluating how ethical recommendations are translated into practice. This study aims to investigate the scope and objectives of empirical studies evaluating how ethical recommendations are translated into practice.

METHODS

A sample of the latest 400 publications from four bioethics journals was created and screened. All publications were included if they met one of the following three criteria: (1) evaluative empirical research, (2) non-evaluative empirical research and (3) borderline cases. For all publications categorized as evaluative empirical research we analyzed which objects (norms and recommendations) had been evaluated.

RESULTS

234 studies were included of which 54% (n = 126) were categorized as non-evaluative empirical studies, 36% (n = 84) as evaluative empirical studies, and 10% (n = 24) as borderline cases. The object of evaluation were aspirational norms in 5 of the 84 included evaluative empirical studies, more specific norms in 14 (16%) studies and concrete best practices in 65 (77%) studies. The specific best practices can be grouped under five broader categories: ethical procedures, ethical institutions, clinical or research practices, educational programs, and legal regulations.

CONCLUSIONS

This mapping study shows that empirical evaluative studies can be found at all stages in the translational process from theory to best practices. Our study suggests two intertwined dimensions for structuring the field of evaluative/translational empirical studies in bioethics: First, three broader categories of evaluation objects and second five categories for types of best practices.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The methodology used was described in a study protocol that was registered publicly on the Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/r6h4y/ ).

Preclinical efficacy in investigator's brochures: Stakeholders' views on measures to improve completeness and robustness

AIMS

Research ethics committees and regulatory agencies assess whether the benefits of a proposed early-stage clinical trial outweigh the risks based on preclinical studies reported in investigator's brochures (IBs). Recent studies have indicated that the reporting of preclinical evidence presented in IBs does not enable proper risk-benefit assessment. We interviewed different stakeholders (regulators, research ethics committee members, preclinical and clinical researchers, ethicists, and metaresearchers) about their views on measures to increase the completeness and robustness of preclinical evidence reporting in IBs.

METHODS

This study was preregistered (https://osf.io/nvzwy/). We used purposive sampling and invited stakeholders to participate in an online semistructured interview between March and June 2021. Themes were derived using inductive content analysis. We used a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats matrix to categorize our findings.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven international stakeholders participated. The interviewees pointed to several strengths and opportunities to improve completeness and robustness, mainly more transparent and systematic justifications for the included studies. However, weaknesses and threats were mentioned that could undermine efforts to enable a more thorough assessment: The interviewees stressed that current review practices are sufficient to ensure the safe conduct of first-in-human trials. They feared that changes to the IB structure or review process could overburden stakeholders and slow drug development.

CONCLUSION

In principle, more robust decision-making processes align with the interests of all stakeholders and with many current initiatives to increase the translatability of preclinical research and limit uninformative or ill-justified trials early in the development process. Further research should investigate measures that could be implemented to benefit all stakeholders.

Generating evidence on privacy outcomes to inform privacy risk management: A way forward?

Effective and efficient privacy risk management (PRM) is a necessary condition to support digitalization in health care and secondary use of patient data in research. To reduce privacy risks, current PRM frameworks are rooted in an approach trying to reduce undesired technical/organizational outcomes such as broken encryption or unintentional data disclosure. Comparing this with risk management in preventive or therapeutic medicine, a key difference becomes apparent: in health-related risk management, medicine focuses on person-specific health outcomes, whereas PRM mostly targets more indirect, technical/organizational outcomes. In this paper, we illustrate and discuss how a PRM approach based on evidence of person-specific privacy outcomes might look using three consecutive steps: i) a specification of undesired person-specific privacy outcomes, ii) empirical assessments of their frequency and severity, and iii) empirical studies on how effectively the available PRM interventions reduce their frequency or severity. After an introduction of these three steps, we cover their status quo and outline open questions and PRM-specific challenges in need of further conceptual clarification and feasibility studies. Specific challenges of an outcome-oriented approach to PRM include the potential delays between concrete threats manifesting and the resulting person/group-specific privacy outcomes. Moreover, new ways of exploiting privacy-sensitive information to harm individuals could be developed in the future. The challenges described are of technical, legal, ethical, financial and resource-oriented nature. In health research, however, there is explicit discussion about how to overcome such challenges to make important outcome-based assessments as feasible as possible. This paper concludes that it might be the time to have this discussion in the PRM field as well.

Measurement challenges and causes of incomplete results reporting of biomedical animal studies: Results from an interview study

Background

Existing evidence indicates that a significant amount of biomedical research involving animals remains unpublished. At the same time, we lack standards for measuring the extent of results reporting in animal research. Publication rates may vary significantly depending on the level of measurement such as an entire animal study, individual experiments within a study, or the number of animals used.

Methods

Drawing on semi-structured interviews with 18 experts and qualitative content analysis, we investigated challenges and opportunities for the measurement of incomplete reporting of biomedical animal research with specific reference to the German situation. We further investigate causes of incomplete reporting.

Results

The in-depth expert interviews revealed several reasons for why incomplete reporting in animal research is difficult to measure at all levels under the current circumstances. While precise quantification based on regulatory approval documentation is feasible at the level of entire studies, measuring incomplete reporting at the more individual experiment and animal levels presents formidable challenges. Expert-interviews further identified six drivers of incomplete reporting of results in animal research. Four of these are well documented in other fields of research: a lack of incentives to report non-positive results, pressures to ‘deliver’ positive results, perceptions that some data do not add value, and commercial pressures. The fifth driver, reputational concerns, appears to be far more salient in animal research than in human clinical trials. The final driver, socio-political pressures, may be unique to the field.

Discussion

Stakeholders in animal research should collaborate to develop a clear conceptualisation of complete reporting in animal research, facilitate valid measurements of the phenomenon, and develop incentives and rewards to overcome the causes for incomplete reporting.

Stakeholders’ views on an institutional dashboard with metrics for responsible research

Concerns about research waste have fueled debate about incentivizing individual researchers and research institutions to conduct responsible research. We showed stakeholders a proof-of-principle dashboard with quantitative metrics of responsible research practices at University Medical Centers (UMCs). Our research question was: What are stakeholders’ views on a dashboard that displays the adoption of responsible research practices on a UMC-level? We recruited stakeholders (UMC leadership, support staff, funders, and experts in responsible research) to participate in online interviews. We applied content analysis to understand what stakeholders considered the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of the dashboard and its metrics. Twenty-eight international stakeholders participated in online interviews. Stakeholders considered the dashboard helpful in providing a baseline before designing interventions and appreciated the focus on concrete behaviors. Main weaknesses concerned the lack of an overall narrative justifying the choice of metrics. Stakeholders hoped the dashboard would be supplemented with other metrics in the future but feared that making the dashboard public might put UMCs in a bad light. Our findings furthermore suggest a need for discussion with stakeholders to develop an overarching framework for responsible research evaluation and to get research institutions on board.

Data protection-compliant broad consent for secondary use of health care data and human biosamples for (bio)medical research: Towards a new German national standard

BACKGROUND

The secondary use of deidentified but not anonymized patient data is a promising approach for enabling precision medicine and learning health care systems. In most national jurisdictions (e.g., in Europe), this type of secondary use requires patient consent. While various ethical, legal, and technical analyses have stressed the opportunities and challenges for different types of consent over the past decade, no country has yet established a national consent standard accepted by the relevant authorities.

METHODS

A working group of the national Medical Informatics Initiative in Germany conducted a requirements analysis and developed a GDPR-compliant broad consent standard. The development included consensus procedures within the Medical Informatics Initiative, a documented consultation process with all relevant stakeholder groups and authorities, and the ultimate submission for approval via the national data protection authorities.

RESULTS

This paper presents the broad consent text together with a guidance document on mandatory safeguards for broad consent implementation. The mandatory safeguards comprise i) independent review of individual research projects, ii) organizational measures to protect patients from involuntary disclosure of protected information, and iii) comprehensive information for patients and public transparency. This paper further describes the key issues discussed with the relevant authorities, especially the position on additional or alternative consent approaches such as dynamic consent.

DISCUSSION

Both the resulting broad consent text and the national consensus process are relevant for similar activities internationally. A key challenge of aligning consent documents with the various stakeholders was explaining and justifying the decision to use broad consent and the decision against using alternative models such as dynamic consent. Public transparency for all secondary use projects and their results emerged as a key factor in this justification. While currently largely limited to academic medicine in Germany, the first steps for extending this broad consent approach to wider areas of application, including smaller institutions and medical practices, are currently under consideration.

Do German university medical centres promote robust and transparent research? A cross-sectional study of institutional policies

Background

In light of replication and translational failures, biomedical research practices have recently come under scrutiny. Experts have pointed out that the current incentive structures at research institutions do not sufficiently incentivise researchers to invest in robustness and transparency and instead incentivise them to optimize their fitness in the struggle for publications and grants. This cross-sectional study aimed to describe whether and how relevant policies of university medical centres in Germany support the robust and transparent conduct of research and how prevalent traditional metrics are.

Methods

For 38 German university medical centres, we searched for institutional policies for academic degrees and academic appointments as well as websites for their core facilities and research in general between December 2020 and February 2021. We screened the documents for mentions of indicators of robust and transparent research (study registration; reporting of results; sharing of research data, code and protocols; open access; and measures to increase robustness) and for mentions of more traditional metrics of career progression (number of publications; number and value of awarded grants; impact factors; and authorship order).

Results

While open access was mentioned in 16% of PhD regulations, other indicators of robust and transparent research were mentioned in less than 10% of institutional policies for academic degrees and academic appointments. These indicators were more frequently mentioned on the core facility and general research websites. Institutional policies for academic degrees and academic appointments had frequent mentions of traditional metrics.

Conclusions

References to robust and transparent research practices are, with a few exceptions, generally uncommon in institutional policies at German university medical centres, while traditional criteria for academic promotion and tenure still prevail.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12961-022-00841-2.

Results publications are inadequately linked to trial registrations: An automated pipeline and evaluation of German university medical centers

Background/Aims

Informed clinical guidance and health policy relies on clinicians, policymakers, and guideline developers finding comprehensive clinical evidence and linking registrations and publications of the same clinical trial. To support the finding and linking of trial evidence, the World Health Organization, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, and the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials ask researchers to provide the trial registration number in their publication and a reference to the publication in the registration. This practice costs researchers minimal effort and makes evidence synthesis more thorough and efficient. Nevertheless, trial evidence appears inadequately linked, and the extent of trial links in Germany remains unquantified. This cross-sectional study aims to evaluate links between registrations and publications across clinical trials conducted by German university medical centers and registered in ClinicalTrials.gov or the German Clinical Trials Registry. Secondary aims are to develop an automated pipeline that can be applied to other cohorts of trial registrations and publications, and to provide stakeholders, from trialists to registries, with guidance to improve trial links.

Methods

We used automated strategies to download and extract data from trial registries, PubMed, and results publications for a cohort of registered, published trials conducted across German university medical centers and completed between 2009 and 2017. We implemented regular expressions to detect and classify publication identifiers in registrations, and trial registration numbers in publication metadata, abstracts, and full-texts.

Results

In breach of long-standing guidelines, 75% (1,418) of trials failed to reference trial registration numbers in both the abstract and full-text of the journal article in which the results were published. Furthermore, 50% (946) of trial registrations did not contain links to their results publications. Seventeen percent (327) of trials had no links, so that associating registration and publication required manual searching and screening. Overall, trials in ClinicalTrials.gov were better linked than those in the German Clinical Trials Registry; PubMed and registry infrastructures appear to drive this difference. Trial registration numbers were more likely to be transferred to PubMed metadata from abstracts for ClinicalTrials.gov trials than for German Clinical Trials Registry trials. Most (78%, 662/849) ClinicalTrials.gov registrations with a publication link were automatically indexed from PubMed metadata, which is not possible in the German Clinical Trials Registry.

Conclusions

German university medical centers have not comprehensively linked trial registrations and publications, despite established recommendations. This shortcoming threatens the quality of evidence synthesis and medical practice, and burdens researchers with manually searching and linking trial data. Researchers could easily improve this by copy-and-pasting references between their trial registrations and publications. Other stakeholders could build on this practice, for example, PubMed could capture additional trial registration numbers using automated strategies (like those developed in this study), and the German Clinical Trials Registry could automatically index publications from PubMed.

Declaration of common standards for the preregistration of animal research-speeding up the scientific progress

Preregistration of studies is a recognized tool in clinical research to improve the quality and reporting of all gained results. In preclinical research, preregistration could boost the translation of published results into clinical breakthroughs. When studies rely on animal testing or form the basis of clinical trials, maximizing the validity and reliability of research outcomes becomes in addition an ethical obligation. Nevertheless, the implementation of preregistration in animal research is still slow. However, research institutions, funders, and publishers start valuing preregistration, and thereby level the way for its broader acceptance in the future. A total of 3 public registries, the OSF registry, preclinicaltrials.eu, and animalstudyregistry.org already encourage the preregistration of research involving animals. Here, they jointly declare common standards to make preregistration a valuable tool for better science. Registries should meet the following criteria: public accessibility, transparency in their financial sources, tracking of changes, and warranty and sustainability of data. Furthermore, registration templates should cover a minimum set of mandatory information and studies have to be uniquely identifiable. Finally, preregistered studies should be linked to any published outcome. To ensure that preregistration becomes a powerful instrument, publishers, funders, and institutions should refer to registries that fulfill these minimum standards.

Results dissemination from completed clinical trials conducted at German university medical centers remained delayed and incomplete. The 2014-2017 cohort

OBJECTIVE

Timely publication of clinical trial results is central for evidence-based medicine. In this follow-up study we benchmark the performance of German university medical centers (UMCs) regarding timely dissemination of clinical trial results in recent years.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Following the same search and tracking methods used in our previous study for the years 2009 - 2013, we identified trials led by German UMCs completed between 2014 and 2017 and tracked results dissemination for the identified trials.

RESULTS

We identified 1,658 trials in the 2014-2017 cohort. Of these trials, 43% published results as either journal publication or summary results within 24 months after completion date, which is an improvement of 3.8% percentage points compared to the previous study. At the UMC level, the proportion published after 24 months ranged from 14% to 71%. Five years after completion, 30% of the trials still remained unpublished.

CONCLUSION

Despite minor improvements compared to the previously investigated cohort, the proportion of timely reported trials led by German UMCs remains low. German UMCs should take further steps to improve the proportion of timely reported trials.

Results availability and timeliness of registered COVID-19 clinical trials: interim cross-sectional results from the DIRECCT study

OBJECTIVE

To examine how and when the results of COVID-19 clinical trials are disseminated.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

The COVID-19 clinical trial landscape.

PARTICIPANTS

285 registered interventional clinical trials for the treatment and prevention of COVID-19 completed by 30 June 2020.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Overall reporting and reporting by dissemination route (ie, by journal article, preprint or results on a registry); time to reporting by dissemination route.

RESULTS

Following automated and manual searches of the COVID-19 literature, we located 41 trials (14%) with results spread across 47 individual results publications published by 15 August 2020. The most common dissemination route was preprints (n=25) followed by journal articles (n=18), and results on a registry (n=2). Of these, four trials were available as both a preprint and journal publication. The cumulative incidence of any reporting surpassed 20% at 119 days from completion. Sensitivity analyses using alternate dates and definitions of results did not appreciably change the reporting percentage. Expanding minimum follow-up time to 3 months increased the overall reporting percentage to 19%.

CONCLUSION

COVID-19 trials completed during the first 6 months of the pandemic did not consistently yield rapid results in the literature or on clinical trial registries. Our findings suggest that the COVID-19 response may be seeing quicker results disclosure compared with non-emergency conditions. Issues with the reliability and timeliness of trial registration data may impact our estimates. Ensuring registry data are accurate should be a priority for the research community during a pandemic. Data collection is underway for the next phase of the DIssemination of REgistered COVID-19 Clinical Trials study expanding both our trial population and follow-up time.

Challenges and proposed solutions in making clinical research on COVID-19 ethical: a status quo analysis across German research ethics committees

BACKGROUND

In the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, the biomedical research community's attempt to focus the attention on fighting COVID-19, led to several challenges within the field of research ethics. However, we know little about the practical relevance of these challenges for Research Ethics Committees (RECs).

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative survey across all 52 German RECs on the challenges and potential solutions with reviewing proposals for COVID-19 studies. We de-identified the answers and applied thematic text analysis for the extraction and synthesis of challenges and potential solutions that we grouped under established principles for clinical research ethics.

RESULTS

We received an overall response rate of 42%. The 22 responding RECs reported that they had assessed a total of 441 study proposals on COVID-19 until 21 April 2020. For the review of these proposals the RECs indicated a broad spectrum of challenges regarding (1) social value (e.g. lack of coordination), (2) scientific validity (e.g. provisional study planning), (3) favourable risk-benefit ratio (e.g. difficult benefit assessment), (4) informed consent (e.g. strict isolation measures), (5) independent review (e.g. lack of time), (6) fair selection of trial participants (e.g. inclusion of vulnerable groups), and (7) respect for study participants (e.g. data security). Mentioned solutions ranged from improved local/national coordination, over guidance on modified consent procedures, to priority setting across clinical studies.

CONCLUSIONS

RECs are facing a broad spectrum of pressing challenges in reviewing COVID-19 studies. Some challenges for consent procedures are well known from research in intensive care settings but are further aggravated by infection measures. Other challenges such as reviewing several clinical studies at the same time that potentially compete for the recruitment of in-house COVID-19 patients are unique to the current situation. For some of the challenges the proposed solutions in our survey could relatively easy be translated into practice. Others need further conceptual and empirical research. Our findings together with the increasing body of literature on COVID-19 research ethics, and further stakeholder engagement should inform the development of hands-on guidance for researchers, funders, RECs, and further oversight bodies.

Web-based survey among animal researchers on publication practices and incentives for increasing publication rates

OBJECTIVES

Publication bias, non-publication, and selective reporting of animal studies limit progress toward the 3Rs (Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement) that guide ethical animal testing, waste public resources, and result in redundant research, which collectively undermine the public's trust in scientific reliability. In this study, we aimed to 1) validate findings from a previous follow-up study by our team that examined the publication rates of animal studies from protocol to publication and 2) identify incentives for improving publication rates in animal research.

METHODS

The researchers responsible for the animal proposals (n = 210) from our previous study were contacted as participants for a Web-based survey between October 2019 and April 2020. Question types varied between free text questions, answer options based on a 5-point Likert scale and closed yes/no questions.

RESULTS

In total, 78 researchers responsible for 101 of 210 animal study proposals participated, yielding a response rate of 48.1%. Results showed that the publication rate increased from 67% in our follow-up study to 70%. According to a 5-point Likert scale (from 1 = "not relevant" to 5 = "extremely relevant"), the most widely accepted suggestions for increasing publication rates were "Publication costs for open access journals are fully covered by funders or universities" (mean 4.02, SD 1.01), "Performance-based allocation of intramural funds for results reporting of animal research not supporting the initial hypothesis (including preprints and repositories)" (mean 3.37, SD 1.05), and "Researchers receive more information from scientific journals that also publish non-significant results" (mean 3.30, SD 1.02).

CONCLUSION

While the extent of publication and publication practices have been thoroughly investigated for clinical trials, less data is available for animal research to date. Therefore, the study contributes in complementing the picture of publication practice in animal research. Suggestions from our survey may help improve the publication rates of animal studies.

The full spectrum of ethical issues in dementia research: findings of a systematic qualitative review

BACKGROUND

When including participants with dementia in research, various ethical issues arise. At present, there are only a few existing dementia-specific research guidelines (Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use in Clinical investigation of medicines for the treatment Alzheimer's disease (Internet). https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/clinical-investigation-medicines-treatment-alzheimers-disease ; Food and Drug Administration, Early Alzheimer's Disease: Developing Drugs for Treatment Guidance for Industry [Internet]. http://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/alzheimers-disease-developing-drugs-treatment-guidance-industy ), necessitating a more systematic and comprehensive approach to this topic to help researchers and stakeholders address dementia-specific ethical issues in research. A systematic literature review provides information on the ethical issues in dementia-related research and might therefore serve as a basis to improve the ethical conduct of this research. This systematic review aims to provide a broad and unbiased overview of ethical issues in dementia research by reviewing, analysing, and coding the latest literature on the topic.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review in PubMed and Google Scholar (publications in English between 2007 and 2020, no restrictions on the type of publication) of literature on research ethics in dementia research. Ethical issues in research were identified by qualitative text analysis and normative analysis.

RESULTS

The literature review retrieved 110 references that together mentioned 105 ethical issues in dementia research. This set of ethical issues was structured into a matrix based on the eight major principles from a pre-existing framework on biomedical ethics (Emanuel et al. An Ethical Framework for Biomedical Research. in The Oxford textbook of clinical research ethics, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008). Consequently, subcategories were created and further categorized into dementia stages and study phases.

CONCLUSIONS

The systematically derived matrix helps raise awareness and understanding of the complex topic of ethical issues in dementia research. The matrix can be used as a basis for researchers, policy makers and other stakeholders when planning, conducting and monitoring research, making decisions on the legal background of the topic, and creating research practice guidelines.

Details of risk-benefit communication in informed consent documents for phase I/II trials

BACKGROUND

Informed consent documents for clinical studies should disclose all reasonably foreseeable risks and benefits. Little guidance exists on how to navigate the complexities of risk-benefit communication, especially in early clinical research. Practice-oriented development of such guidance should be informed by evidence on what and how details of risks and benefits are currently communicated.

METHOD

We surveyed the responsible parties of phase I/II trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov that started 2007 or later and completed between 2012 and 2016 to sample informed consent documents from a broad spectrum of early phase clinical trials. Based on an assessment matrix, we qualitatively and quantitatively assessed the informed consent documents for details of risk-benefit communication.

RESULTS

The risk-benefit communication in the 172 informed consent documents differed substantially in several regards. The outcome, extent, and likelihood of health risks, for example, were described in 83%, 32%, and 63% of the informed consent documents. Only 45% of informed consent documents specified the outcome of mentioned health benefits, and the extent and likelihood of health benefits were never specified. From those informed consent documents reporting risk likelihoods, only 57% added frequency numbers to words such as "common" or "rare," and even in these cases, we found strong variations for presented frequency ranges. Substantial heterogeneity also exists for how informed consent documents communicate other risk and benefit types and related safeguards.

CONCLUSION

Our study points to several shortcomings and heterogeneities in how informed consent documents communicate risks and benefits to potential research participants. Health risks, for example, should be specified with frequency numbers, and health benefits should be specified at least by mentioning their outcomes. Further demand for research and policy development is needed to harmonize risk-benefit communication and to clarify ways to specify the likelihood of health benefits.

Investigator brochures for phase I/II trials lack information on the robustness of preclinical safety studies

AIM

Meaningful and ethical phase I/II trials can only be conducted with supportive prospective risk-benefit assessment. This relies largely on preclinical animal studies addressing the safety and efficacy of treatments. These studies are reported in an Investigator's Brochure (IB) to inform ethics review boards and regulatory authorities. Our study investigated the extent, reporting quality and accessibility of preclinical safety studies (PCSSs) compiled in IBs.

METHODS

We analysed a sample of 46 IBs for phase I/II trials approved at a leading German university medical centre from 2010 to 2016. We extracted all PCSSs presented in the 46 IBs and assessed them for reporting on methodological measures to reduce validity threats.

RESULTS

The 46 IBs included 777 PCSSs. Blinded outcome assessment, randomization and sample size calculation were reported for fewer than 1% of studies. Only 5% of the PCSSs provided a reference to published data. Compliance with Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) guidance was reported for 52% of PCSSs, but the GLP document itself does not include any relevant methodological requirements for the reduction of validity threats.

CONCLUSION

Scarce reporting in IBs and the very limited publicly available data on PCSSs make it almost impossible for investigators to critically evaluate the robustness of preclinical evidence of drug safety. Combined with recent findings on the presentation of preclinical efficacy studies in IBs, we conclude that the current reporting patterns in IBs strongly limit the independent review of evidential support for early human trials. Regulatory authorities and IRBs should require better reporting in IBs.

[Ethics University on Regenerative Medicine - As an Instrument for the Development of Valid Public Opinions?]

OBJECTIVES

In 2016, we invited interested citizens to participate in the "ethics university on regenerative medicine" at Hannover Medical School. The present study analyses if and how this discursive and informative event inspired participants to form their own opinion on the issues at hand and to develop their general ethics literacy.

METHODS

The "ethics university" was performed twice in 2016; each run consisted of four single consecutive events. Lectures were combined with interactive learning stations, and group discussions. Opinions and information level of all participants were surveyed by means of a postal questionnaire before and after the course to detect any changes of opinions and information levels; additionally, we surveyed participants' self-assessment. Participants of the second run were asked to form a waiting list control group to compare results from first run-participants. Furthermore, we conducted a content analysis of group discussions during the ethics university.

RESULTS

Of 168 participants of both runs, 101 took part in the pre/post-survey. In addition, 30 questionnaires of the waiting list control group were analysed. Participants showed a higher level of information after the ethics university (changes between 0.75 and 1.93 points on a five-point scale). Between 50.5 and 66.0% of participants indicated that their opinion on different issues had become either more affirmative or more disapprobative as a result of attending the ethics university. On average, opinions were more positive after participation (between 0.44 and 1.0 points on a 5-point scale). Respondents in the waiting list control group showed no changes in opinion or information level. Participants themselves felt that they formed their opinions mainly on the basis of information they received in lectures, conversations with experts, interactive learning sessions, and written information. However, for many participants, interacting with other participants in the group discussions, as well as reflecting their own views was an important to forming informed opinions.

CONCLUSION

Results of the evaluation show that participants were inspired to form their own opinions by the ethics university and to develop their ethics literacy (e. g. ability to reflect on normative questions). For future ethics universities, the group of participants should be as diverse as possible. In addition, interactive and discursive elements should be given a higher priority.

Implementation of data access and use procedures in clinical data warehouses. A systematic review of literature and publicly available policies

BACKGROUND

The promises of improved health care and health research through data-intensive applications rely on a growing amount of health data. At the core of large-scale data integration efforts, clinical data warehouses (CDW) are also responsible for data governance, managing data access and (re)use. As the complexity of the data flow increases, greater transparency and standardization of criteria and procedures are required in order to maintain objective oversight and control. Therefore, the development of practice oriented and evidence-based policies is crucial. This study assessed the spectrum of data access and use criteria and procedures in clinical data warehouses governance internationally.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of (a) the published scientific literature on CDW and (b) publicly available information on CDW data access, e.g., data access policies. A qualitative thematic analysis was applied to all included literature and policies.

RESULTS

Twenty-three scientific publications and one policy document were included in the final analysis. The qualitative analysis led to a final set of three main thematic categories: (1) requirements, including recipient requirements, reuse requirements, and formal requirements; (2) structures and processes, including review bodies and review values; and (3) access, including access limitations.

CONCLUSIONS

The description of data access and use governance in the scientific literature is characterized by a high level of heterogeneity and ambiguity. In practice, this might limit the effective data sharing needed to fulfil the high expectations of data-intensive approaches in medical research and health care. The lack of publicly available information on access policies conflicts with ethical requirements linked to principles of transparency and accountability. CDW should publicly disclose by whom and under which conditions data can be accessed, and provide designated governance structures and policies to increase transparency on data access. The results of this review may contribute to the development of practice-oriented minimal standards for the governance of data access, which could also result in a stronger harmonization, efficiency, and effectiveness of CDW.

[Covid-19: An ad hoc public health ethics consultation]

In this paper we describe the process and content of our ad hoc public health ethics consultation for a Bavarian health authority in relation to Covid-19.

Improving the trustworthiness, usefulness, and ethics of biomedical research through an innovative and comprehensive institutional initiative

The reproducibility crisis triggered worldwide initiatives to improve rigor, reproducibility, and transparency in biomedical research. There are many examples of scientists, journals, and funding agencies adopting responsible research practices. The QUEST (Quality-Ethics-Open Science-Translation) Center offers a unique opportunity to examine the role of institutions. The Berlin Institute of Health founded QUEST to increase the likelihood that research conducted at this large academic medical center would be trustworthy, useful for scientists and society, and ethical. QUEST researchers perform "science of science" studies to understand problems with standard practices and develop targeted solutions. The staff work with institutional leadership and local scientists to incentivize and support responsible practices in research, funding, and hiring. Some activities described in this paper focus on the institution, whereas others may benefit the national and international scientific community. Our experience, approaches, and recommendations will be informative for faculty leadership, administrators, and researchers interested in improving scientific practice.

Results dissemination of registered clinical trials across Polish academic institutions: a cross-sectional analysis

OBJECTIVES

To establish the rates of publication and reporting of results for interventional clinical trials across Polish academic medical centres (AMCs) completed between 2009 and 2013. We aim also to compare the publication and reporting success between adult and paediatric trials.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

AMCs in Poland.

PARTICIPANTS

AMCs with interventional trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Results reporting on ClinicalTrials.gov and publishing via journal publication.

RESULTS

We identified 305 interventional clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, completed between 2009 and 2013 and affiliated with at least one AMC. Overall, 243 of the 305 trials (79.7%) had been published as articles or posted their summary results on ClinicalTrials.gov. Results were posted within a year of study completion and/or published within 2 years of study completion for 131 trials (43.0%). Dissemination by both posting and publishing results in a timely manner was achieved by four trials (1.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our cross-sectional analysis revealed that Polish AMCs fail to meet the expectation for timely disseminating the findings of all interventional clinical trials. Delayed dissemination and non-dissemination of trial results negatively affects decisions in healthcare.

Attitudes towards animal study registries and their characteristics: An online survey of three cohorts of animal researchers

OBJECTIVES

Prospective registration of animal studies has been suggested as a new measure to increase value and reduce waste in biomedical research. We sought to further explore and quantify animal researchers' attitudes and preferences regarding animal study registries (ASRs).

DESIGN

Cross-sectional online survey.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

We conducted a survey with three different samples representing animal researchers: i) corresponding authors from journals with high Eigenfactor, ii) a random Pubmed sample and iii) members of the CAMARADES network.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Perceived level of importance of different aspects of publication bias, the effect of ASRs on different aspects of research as well as the importance of different research types for being registered.

RESULTS

The survey yielded responses from 413 animal researchers (response rate 7%). The respondents indicated, that some aspects of ASRs can increase administrative burden but could be outweighed by other aspects decreasing this burden. Animal researchers found it more important to register studies that involved animal species with higher levels of cognitive capabilities. The time frame for making registry entries publicly available revealed a strong heterogeneity among respondents, with the largest proportion voting for "access only after consent by the principal investigator" and the second largest proportion voting for "access immediately after registration".

CONCLUSIONS

The fact that the more senior and experienced animal researchers participating in this survey clearly indicated the practical importance of publication bias and the importance of ASRs underscores the problem awareness across animal researchers and the willingness to actively engage in study registration if effective safeguards for the potential weaknesses of ASRs are put into place. To overcome the first-mover dilemma international consensus statements on how to deal with prospective registration of animal studies might be necessary for all relevant stakeholder groups including animal researchers, academic institutions, private companies, funders, regulatory agencies, and journals.

Broad donor consent for human biobanks in Germany and Europe: a strategy to facilitate cross-border sharing and exchange of human biological materials and related data

Background

Human biobanks are generally recognized as essential resources for effective biomedical research. All over the world biosamples and data from human subjects are collected in large biobanks. The biological material is stored long term for current and future (undetermined) research issues, which often require cross-border exchange of biosamples and related data.

Content

Commonly, the informed consent for research on human biospecimen is intended to cover only defined, specific research objectives. In June 2016, the biobank Task-Force of the Working Party of the German Medical Ethics Committees (WP-GMEC) updated its template for the broad use of human biological samples and related data. It complies with the current Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and World Medical Association (WMA) recommendations and furnishes a framework that permits long-term storage and multi-purpose research use of human biological material and related data, including cross-border research.

However, both (i) human biobanks storing and (ii) research projects requesting “broad consent” biological samples generally require an ethical approval; in addition, “broad consent” conditions should be reciprocated by making biobank processes transparent and by fostering both donor and public involvement.

Outlook

The broad consent template of the WP-GMEC clearly states that biological samples and data donated for medical research serve to address current and future research questions. It appears perfectly suited as a template for a Europe-wide harmonized broad consent facilitating biobank-based cross-border research.

Publication rates in animal research. Extent and characteristics of published and non-published animal studies followed up at two German university medical centres

Non-publication and publication bias in animal research is a core topic in current debates on the "reproducibility crisis" and "failure rates in clinical research". To date, however, we lack reliable evidence on the extent of non-publication in animal research. We collected a random and stratified sample (n = 210) from all archived animal study protocols of two major German UMCs (university medical centres) and tracked their results publication. The overall publication rate was 67%. Excluding doctoral theses as results publications, the publication rate decreased to 58%. We did not find substantial differences in publication rates with regard to i) the year of animal study approval, ii) the two UMCs, iii) the animal type (rodents vs. non-rodents), iv) the scope of research (basic vs. preclinical), or v) the discipline of the applicant. Via the most reliable assessment strategy currently available, our study confirms that the non-publication of results from animal studies conducted at UMCs is relatively common. The non-publication of 33% of all animal studies is problematic for the following reasons: A) the primary legitimation of animal research, which is the intended knowledge gain for the wider scientific community, B) the waste of public resources, C) the unnecessary repetition of animal studies, and D) incomplete and potentially biased preclinical evidence for decision making on launching early human trials. Results dissemination should become a professional standard for animal research. Academic institutions and research funders should develop effective policies in this regard.

Result dissemination from clinical trials conducted at German university medical centers was delayed and incomplete

OBJECTIVES

Timely and comprehensive reporting of clinical trial results builds the backbone of evidence-based medicine and responsible research. The proportion of timely disseminated trial results can inform alternative national and international benchmarking of university medical centers (UMCs).

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

For all German UMCs, we tracked all registered trials completed between 2009 and 2013. The results and an interactive website benchmark German UMCs regarding their performance in result dissemination.

RESULTS

We identified and tracked 2,132 clinical trials. For 1,509 trials, one of the German UMCs took the academic lead. Of these 1,509 "lead trials," 39% published their results (mostly via journal publications) in a timely manner (<24 months after completion). More than 6 years after study completion, 26% of all eligible lead trials still had not disseminated results.

CONCLUSION

Despite substantial attention from many stakeholders to the topic, there is still a strong delay or even absence of result dissemination for many trials. German UMCs have several opportunities to improve this situation. Further research should evaluate whether and how a transparent benchmarking of UMC performance in result dissemination helps to increase value and reduce waste in medical research.

[Scientific and ethical evaluation of projects in data-driven medicine]

The generation and usage of extensive data from medical care aims at answering crucial medical research questions. Buzzwords in this area are learning health system, data-driven medicine and big data. In addition to classical biostatistical methods, machine learning approaches are frequently applied for analysis.In the evaluation of projects from data-driven medicine by research ethics committees, the question arises of how to assess the benefit-risk ratio and the scientific and social value. Which knowledge is required for that purpose? How can research ethics committees prepare for these challenges? Scientific approaches from the area of observational studies and the consideration of agreed-upon ethical aspects (consent, validity, justice, benefit-risk ratio and transparency) can help to answer the above-mentioned questions. One has to bear in mind that data-driven medicine is no paradigm shift that in principle challenges the established scientific and ethical evaluation procedures. Nevertheless, the evaluation of projects from data-driven medicine requires enhanced specialisation and comprehensive methodical expertise from the areas of machine learning and observational studies.Empirical research of the progression and governance of data-driven medicine will support the development and continual adaptation of effective strategies for evaluation by research ethics committees. Training and networking of experts will enable us to meet the challenges of data-driven medicine.

3Rs missing: animal research without scientific value is unethical

The current, widely established 3R framework for the ethical use of animals in research consists of three guiding principles, that is, Replacement, Reduction and Refinement, all aiming to safeguard the overarching ethical principle of animal welfare. However, animal welfare alone does not suffice to make animal research ethical if the research does not have sufficient scientific value. The scientific value of animal studies strongly decreases if they are not sufficiently robust, if their questions have already been sufficiently addressed or if the results are selectively reported. Against this background, we argue that three guiding principles are missing, that is, Robustness, Registration and Reporting, all of which aim to safeguard and increase the scientific value of animal research. To establish a new 6R framework, we need a multistakeholder discourse to conceptualise the specific requirements of robustness, registration and reporting and to clarify responsibilities, competencies and legislation for auditing 6R compliance.

Tracking the timely dissemination of clinical studies. Characteristics and impact of 10 tracking variables

Background: Several meta-research studies and benchmarking activities have assessed how comprehensively and timely, academic institutions and private companies publish their clinical studies. These current "clinical trial tracking" activities differ substantially in how they sample relevant studies, and how they follow up on their publication. Methods: To allow informed policy and decision making on future publication assessment and benchmarking of institutions and companies, this paper outlines and discusses 10 variables that influence the tracking of timely publications. Tracking variables were initially selected by experts and by the authors through discussion. To validate the completeness of our set of variables, we conducted i) an explorative review of tracking studies and ii) an explorative tracking of registered clinical trials of three leading German university medical centres. Results: We identified the following 10 relevant variables impacting the tracking of clinical studies: 1) responsibility for clinical studies, 2) type and characteristics of clinical studies, 3) status of clinical studies, 4) source for sampling, 5) timing of registration, 6) determination of completion date, 7) timeliness of dissemination, 8) format of dissemination, 9) source for tracking, and 10) inter-rater reliability. Based on the description of these tracking variables and their influence, we discuss which variables could serve in what ways as a standard assessment of "timely publication". Conclusions: To facilitate the tracking and consequent benchmarking of how often and how timely academic institutions and private companies publish clinical study results, we have two core recommendations. First, the improvement in the link between registration and publication, for example via institutional policies for academic institutions and private companies. Second, the comprehensive and transparent reporting of tracking studies according to the 10 variables presented in this paper.

Practice evaluation of biobank ethics and governance: current needs and future perspectives

BACKGROUND

Biobank research faces many ethical challenges. Ethics research aims to develop standards for governance to meet these challenges by elaborating overarching normative principles of medical ethics in the context of biobanking. Most ethical standards are widely agreed on among biobank stakeholders and entail specific governance solutions, for example, adoption of consent procedures. In order to fully meet its goal, every governance solution needs to be implemented, evaluated and, if necessary, adapted and improved in practice. This study reviews the scientific literature on biobank ethics and governance in order to identify studies that specifically focus on practice evaluation of biobank governance.

METHODS

A PubMed search was carried out. Retrieved literature was categorised and thematically clustered. All studies that focus on practice evaluation were reviewed and their objectives, results, and recommendations for practice summarised.

RESULTS

The findings show that the majority of studies on biobank ethics and governance are theoretical; only 25 out of 922 studies empirically evaluate biobank governance in practice. The majority of these (14; 59%) focused on informed consent. Six studies (24%) addressed practice evaluation of sample and data access; the rest focused on public involvement, ethics reporting and incidental findings. Other relevant governance areas such as ethics review, priority setting and sample ownership were not addressed.

CONCLUSION

In order to fulfil the ethical goals, more empirical research is needed that provides information on how governance mechanisms perform in practice and what improvements are needed.

Preclinical efficacy in therapeutic area guidelines from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Therapeutic area guidelines (TAGs) published by the EMA and the FDA offer guidance in planning the launch of a trial in a certain indication. We assessed and compared the guidance on preclinical efficacy of all available TAGs from EMA and FDA.

EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH

EMA and FDA websites and databases were searched for all TAGs. A mixed deductive and inductive approach was applied to analyse and cluster content for preclinical efficacy.

KEY RESULTS

A total of 114 EMA and 120 FDA TAGs were identified, covering 126 indications. Our core finding is that 75% of EMA TAGs and 58% from the FDA TAGs do not offer any guidance on preclinical efficacy. TAGs varied widely on the extent, nature and detail of guidance.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Guidance on preclinical efficacy in a consistent, comprehensive and explicit way that still allows for justified deviations is an important but neglected aspect of transparency for drug development. This transparency would help sponsors in designing preclinical studies and in negotiating more efficiently with regulators.

The spectrum of ethical issues in a Learning Health Care System: a systematic qualitative review

Purpose

To determine systematically the spectrum of ethical issues that is raised for stakeholders in a 'Learning Health Care System' (LHCS).

Data sources

The systematic review was conducted in PubMed and Google Books between the years 2007 and 2015.

Study selection

The literature search retrieved 1258 publications. Each publication was independently screened by two reviewers for eligibility for inclusion. Ethical issues were defined as arising when a relevant normative principle is not adequately considered or two principles come into conflict.

Data extraction

A total of 65 publications were included in the final analysis and were analysed using an adapted version of qualitative content analysis. A coding frame was developed inductively from the data, only the highest-level categories were generated deductively for a life-cycle perspective.

Results of data synthesis

A total of 67 distinct ethical issues could be categorized under different phases of the LHCS life-cycle. An overarching theme that was repeatedly raised was the conflict between the current regulatory system and learning health care.

Conclusion

The implementation of a LHCS can help realize the ethical imperative to continuously improve the quality of health care. However, the implementation of a LHCS can also raise a number of important ethical issues itself. This review highlights the importance for health care leaders and policy makers to balance the need to protect and respect individual participants involved in learning health care activities with the social value of improving health care.

Why are so few patients rating their physicians on German physician rating websites? A qualitative study

Background

Physician rating websites (PRWs) allow patients to rate, comment and discuss physicians’ quality online as a source of information for others searching for a physician. It is generally assumed that PRWs will only be helpful for users, and fair for the rated, if there are a high number of ratings. However, the number of ratings on PRWs remains low internationally and there is currently a lack of research examining the reasons why patients are not rating their physicians. The aim of this study is to therefore identify the spectrum of factors influencing people’s willingness to rate their physician on PRWs.

Methods

A mailed cross-sectional survey sent to a random sample from 4 North German cities between April and July 2016. Fifty participants who had previously used PRWs but not rated a physician provided reasons for why that had not rated a physician in a free text response. Semi-structured qualitative telephone interviews were then conducted with 22 interested participants to explore factors influencing their willingness to rate their physician on PRWs in more detail.

Results

Participants identified a total of 21 distinct incentives and disincentives for rating physicians on PRWs, which could be further categorised under the headings: user-specific, PRW-specific and physician-specific. Two key overarching groups of factors emerged: (1) factors concerning the physician-patient relationship, and (2) factors issues regarding technical aspects of PRWs.

Conclusion

These findings will be helpful in guiding future research and health policy initiatives to increase the usefulness and fairness of PRWs.

Current practices for access, compensation, and prioritization in biobanks. Results from an interview study

Human biological materials and related data stored in biobanks are valuable resources for biomedical research. Transparent, effective, and efficient governance structures and procedures for access, compensation, and priority setting are needed, but recent debates indicate challenges in the practical application of such governance processes. This study aimed to assess the practical experiences and attitudes of biobank experts regarding the governance of biosample access, prioritization, and compensation. Qualitative, semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 20 biobank directors from eight countries. Respondents highlighted the need for sound governance structures in order to ensure acceptance by all stakeholders (patients/donors, researchers, research funders, public, and others). They stressed practical difficulties in trying to make best use of biomaterials. As biobanks often form part of larger academic and clinical settings, the different and sometimes conflicting interests of researchers, clinicians, patients, funders, and biobank staff currently affect the governance of access decisions. Investments such as intellectual input, financial, and human resources need to be compensated adequately. Biobanks thereby have a dual role stewarding the hosted biosamples and acting as a service provider for local researchers from universities or hospitals. In order to facilitate efficient use of human biological materials, greater harmonization of at least minimum standards for access and compensation are required at both a national and an international level.

Standards of practice in empirical bioethics research: towards a consensus

BACKGROUND

This paper reports the process and outcome of a consensus finding project, which began with a meeting at the Brocher Foundation in May 2015. The project sought to generate and reach consensus on standards of practice for Empirical Bioethics research. The project involved 16 academics from 5 different European Countries, with a range of disciplinary backgrounds.

METHODS

The consensus process used a modified Delphi approach.

RESULTS

Consensus was reached on 15 standards of practice, organised into 6 domains of research practice (Aims, Questions, Integration, Conduct of Empirical Work, Conduct of Normative Work; Training & Expertise).

CONCLUSIONS

Through articulating these standards we outline a position that encourages responses, and through those responses we will be able to identify points of agreement and contestation that will drive the conversation forward. In that vein, we would encourage researchers, funders and journals to engage with what we have proposed, and respond to us, so that our community of practice of empirical bioethics research can develop and evolve further.

The bench is closer to the bedside than we think: Uncovering the ethical ties between preclinical researchers in translational neuroscience and patients in clinical trials

Millions of people worldwide currently suffer from serious neurological diseases and injuries for which there are few, and often no, effective treatments. The paucity of effective interventions is, no doubt, due in large part to the complexity of the disorders, as well as our currently limited understanding of their pathophysiology. The bleak picture for patients, however, is also attributable to avoidable impediments stemming from quality concerns in preclinical research that often escape detection by research regulation efforts. In our essay, we connect the dots between these concerns about the quality of preclinical research and their potential ethical impact on the patients who volunteer for early trials of interventions informed by it. We do so in hopes that a greater appreciation among preclinical researchers of these serious ethical consequences can lead to a greater commitment within the research community to adopt widely available tools and measures that can help to improve the quality of research.

The Public's Awareness of and Attitude Toward Research Biobanks - A Regional German Survey

Background: Biobanks have become an increasingly important means of biomedical research and innovation. However, they entail a variety of ethical, social and legal challenges, which need to be publicly discussed and managed collectively. A certain level of public awareness of biobank research is an important prerequisite for the public to form an opinion on the issue at hand and to be willing to participate in public engagement activities. For many countries, including Germany, recent information on the public's awareness of and attitude toward biobanks is scarce. Methods: Therefore, by means of a postal survey in a German urban region, this study updates data from the 2010 Eurobarometer by analyzing (1) the public's awareness of biobanks, (2) their general attitude toward biobanks, and (3) their hypothetical willingness to donate their own biological samples and personal or medical data. Results: Overall, 204 (20.4%) of 998 delivered questionnaires were returned. The majority of survey respondents stated a positive attitude toward medical research (95.5%) and - to a somewhat lower degree - toward genetic research (61.3%). Attitudes toward biobanks were mixed but positive for the majority of respondents: in a question about their spontaneous assessment of biobanks as a means for medical research, 77% showed positive attitudes toward biobanks (36.6% "definitely" and 40.5% "somewhat positive"). This finding is also reflected in a high proportion of individuals willing to participate in biobank research: 70.4% of respondents would be willing to donate biomaterial to a biobank during a hypothetical stay in hospital. In spite of the high overall support respondents show for biobanks (e.g., positive general attitude and willingness to participate), only about one third (30.8%) had previously heard of biobanks. Discussion and Conclusion: The comparison of survey results with prior data from the 2010 Eurobarometer indicates that public awareness of biobanks remains low. A higher level of biobank awareness can be assumed to be one prerequisite for public engagement in future decisions on biobank governance. We therefore argue that to increase public awareness of biobanks and to enable public involvement in biobank governance, publicly available and understandable information must be provided and disseminated.

Preclinical efficacy studies in investigator brochures: Do they enable risk-benefit assessment?

Human protection policies require favorable risk–benefit judgments prior to launch of clinical trials. For phase I and II trials, evidence for such judgment often stems from preclinical efficacy studies (PCESs). We undertook a systematic investigation of application materials (investigator brochures [IBs]) presented for ethics review for phase I and II trials to assess the content and properties of PCESs contained in them. Using a sample of 109 IBs most recently approved at 3 institutional review boards based at German Medical Faculties between the years 2010–2016, we identified 708 unique PCESs. We then rated all identified PCESs for their reporting on study elements that help to address validity threats, whether they referenced published reports, and the direction of their results. Altogether, the 109 IBs reported on 708 PCESs. Less than 5% of all PCESs described elements essential for reducing validity threats such as randomization, sample size calculation, and blinded outcome assessment. For most PCESs (89%), no reference to a published report was provided. Only 6% of all PCESs reported an outcome demonstrating no effect. For the majority of IBs (82%), all PCESs were described as reporting positive findings. Our results show that most IBs for phase I/II studies did not allow evaluators to systematically appraise the strength of the supporting preclinical findings. The very rare reporting of PCESs that demonstrated no effect raises concerns about potential design or reporting biases. Poor PCES design and reporting thwart risk–benefit evaluation during ethical review of phase I/II studies.

To make a clinical trial ethical, regulatory agencies and institutional review boards have to judge whether the trial-related benefits (the knowledge gain) outweigh the trial-inherent risks. For early-phase human research, these risk–benefit assessments are often based on evidence from preclinical animal studies reported in so-called “investigator brochures.” However, our analysis shows that the vast majority of such investigator brochures lack sufficient information to systematically appraise the strength of the supporting preclinical findings. Furthermore, the very rare reporting of preclinical efficacy studies that demonstrated no effect raises concerns about potential design and/or reporting biases. The poor preclinical study design and reporting thwarts risk–benefit evaluation during ethical review of early human research. Regulators should develop standards for the design and reporting of preclinical efficacy studies in order to support the conduct of ethical clinical trials.

Routinely collected data for randomized trials: promises, barriers, and implications

BACKGROUND

Routinely collected health data (RCD) are increasingly used for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This can provide three major benefits: increasing value through better feasibility (reducing costs, time, and resources), expanding the research agenda (performing trials for research questions otherwise not amenable to trials), and offering novel design and data collection options (e.g., point-of-care trials and other designs directly embedded in routine care). However, numerous hurdles and barriers must be considered pertaining to regulatory, ethical, and data aspects, as well as the costs of setting up the RCD infrastructure. Methodological considerations may be different from those in traditional RCTs: RCD are often collected by individuals not involved in the study and who are therefore blinded to the allocation of trial participants. Another consideration is that RCD trials may lead to greater misclassification biases or dilution effects, although these may be offset by randomization and larger sample sizes. Finally, valuable insights into external validity may be provided when using RCD because it allows pragmatic trials to be performed.

METHODS

We provide an overview of the promises, challenges, and potential barriers, methodological implications, and research needs regarding RCD for RCTs.

RESULTS

RCD have substantial potential for improving the conduct and reducing the costs of RCTs, but a multidisciplinary approach is essential to address emerging practical barriers and methodological implications.

CONCLUSIONS

Future research should be directed toward such issues and specifically focus on data quality validation, alternative research designs and how they affect outcome assessment, and aspects of reporting and transparency.

Participatory improvement of a template for informed consent documents in biobank research - study results and methodological reflections

Background

For valid informed consent, it is crucial that patients or research participants fully understand all that their consent entails. Testing and revising informed consent documents with the assistance of their addressees can improve their understandability. In this study we aimed at further developing a method for testing and improving informed consent documents with regard to readability and test-readers’ understanding and reactions.

Methods

We tested, revised, and retested template informed consent documents for biobank research by means of 11 focus group interviews with members from the documents’ target population. For the analysis of focus group excerpts we used qualitative content analysis. Revisions were made based on focus group feedback in an iterative process.

Results

Focus group participants gave substantial feedback on the original and on the revised version of the tested documents. Revisions included adding and clarifying explanations, including an info-box summarizing the main points of the text and an illustrative graphic.

Conclusion

Our results indicate positive effects on the tested and revised informed consent documents in regard to general readability and test-readers’ understanding and reactions. Participatory methods for improving informed consent should be more often applied and further evaluated for both, medical interventions and clinical research. Particular conceptual and methodological challenges need to be addressed in the future.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12910-017-0232-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Public Awareness and Use of German Physician Ratings Websites: Cross-Sectional Survey of Four North German Cities

Background

Physician rating websites (PRWs) allow patients to rate, comment, and discuss physicians’ quality. The ability of PRWs to influence patient decision making and health care quality is dependent, in part, on sufficient awareness and usage of PRWs. However, previous studies have found relatively low levels of awareness and usage of PRWs, which has raised concerns about the representativeness and validity of information on PRWs.

Objective

The objectives of this study were to examine (1) participants’ awareness, use, and contribution of ratings on PRWs and how this compares with other rating websites; (2) factors that predict awareness, use, and contribution of ratings on PRWs; and (3) participants’ attitudes toward PRWs in relation to selecting a physician.

Methods

A mailed cross-sectional survey was sent to a random sample (N=1542) from four North German cities (Nordhorn, Hildesheim, Bremen, and Hamburg) between April and July 2016. Survey questions explored respondents’ awareness, use, and contribution of ratings on rating websites for service (physicians, hospitals, and hotels and restaurants) and products (media and technical) in general and the role of PRWs when searching for a new physician.

Results

A total of 280 completed surveys were returned (280/1542, 18.16% response rate), with the following findings: (1) Overall, 72.5% (200/276) of respondents were aware of PRWs. Of the respondents who were aware of PRWs, 43.6% (86/197) had used PRWs. Of the respondents who had used PRWs, 23% (19/83) had rated physicians at least once. Awareness, use, and contribution of ratings on PRWs were significantly lower in comparison with all other rating websites, except for hospital rating websites. (2) Except for the impact of responders’ gender and marital status on the awareness of PRWs and responders’ age on the use of PRWs, no other predictors had a relevant impact. (3) Whereas 31.8% (85/267) of the respondents reported that PRWs were a very important or somewhat important information source when searching for a new physician, respondents significantly more often reported that family, friends and colleagues (259/277, 93.5%), other physicians (219/274, 79.9%), and practice websites (108/266, 40.6%) were important information sources.

Conclusions

Whereas awareness of German PRWs appears to have substantially increased, the use of PRWs and contribution of ratings remains relatively low. Further research is needed to examine the reasons why only a few patients are rating physicians. However, given the information inequality between provider and consumer will always be higher for consumers using the services of physicians, it is possible that people will always rely more on interpersonal recommendations than impersonal public information before selecting a physician.

An integrated conceptual framework for evaluating and improving 'understanding' in informed consent

Background

The development of understandable informed consent (IC) documents has proven to be one of the most important challenges in research with humans as well as in healthcare settings. Therefore, evaluating and improving understanding has been of increasing interest for empirical research on IC. However, several conceptual and practical challenges for the development of understandable IC documents remain unresolved.

Methods

In this paper, we will outline and systematize some of these challenges. On the basis of our own experiences in empirical user testing of IC documents as well as the relevant literature on understanding in IC, we propose an integrated conceptual model for the development of understandable IC documents.

Results

The proposed conceptual model integrates different methods for the participatory improvement of written information, including IC, as well as quantitative methods for measuring understanding in IC.

Conclusions

In most IC processes, understandable written information is an important prerequisite for valid IC. To improve the quality of IC documents, a conceptual model for participatory procedures of testing, revising, and retesting can be applied. However, the model presented in this paper needs further theoretical and empirical elaboration and clarification of several conceptual and practical challenges.