Clinical trial registration and reporting: a survey of academic organizations in the United States
Abstract Background Many clinical trials conducted by academic organizations are not published, or are not published completely. Following the US Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007, “The Final Rule” (compliance date April 18, 2017) and a National Institutes of Health policy clarifie...
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
BMC
2018-05-01
|
Series: | BMC Medicine |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12916-018-1042-6 |
id |
doaj-bcb72671c9aa480aa84078d401041e37 |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-bcb72671c9aa480aa84078d401041e372020-11-24T21:46:01ZengBMCBMC Medicine1741-70152018-05-0116111310.1186/s12916-018-1042-6Clinical trial registration and reporting: a survey of academic organizations in the United StatesEvan Mayo-Wilson0James Heyward1Anthony Keyes2Jesse Reynolds3Sarah White4Nidhi Atri5G. Caleb Alexander6Audrey Omar7Daniel E. Ford8on behalf of the National Clinical Trials Registration and Results Reporting Taskforce Survey SubcommitteeDepartment of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public HealthDepartment of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public HealthClinical Research Projects, Johns Hopkins University School of MedicineYale Center for Analytical StudiesHuman Research Quality Improvement Program, Partners HealthCareJohns Hopkins University School of MedicineDepartments of Epidemiology and Medicine, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public HealthYale Center for Analytical StudiesJohns Hopkins University School of MedicineAbstract Background Many clinical trials conducted by academic organizations are not published, or are not published completely. Following the US Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007, “The Final Rule” (compliance date April 18, 2017) and a National Institutes of Health policy clarified and expanded trial registration and results reporting requirements. We sought to identify policies, procedures, and resources to support trial registration and reporting at academic organizations. Methods We conducted an online survey from November 21, 2016 to March 1, 2017, before organizations were expected to comply with The Final Rule. We included active Protocol Registration and Results System (PRS) accounts classified by ClinicalTrials.gov as a “University/Organization” in the USA. PRS administrators manage information on ClinicalTrials.gov. We invited one PRS administrator to complete the survey for each organization account, which was the unit of analysis. Results Eligible organization accounts (N = 783) included 47,701 records (e.g., studies) in August 2016. Participating organizations (366/783; 47%) included 40,351/47,701 (85%) records. Compared with other organizations, Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) holders, cancer centers, and large organizations were more likely to participate. A minority of accounts have a registration (156/366; 43%) or results reporting policy (129/366; 35%). Of those with policies, 15/156 (11%) and 49/156 (35%) reported that trials must be registered before institutional review board approval is granted or before beginning enrollment, respectively. Few organizations use computer software to monitor compliance (68/366; 19%). One organization had penalized an investigator for non-compliance. Among the 287/366 (78%) accounts reporting that they allocate staff to fulfill ClinicalTrials.gov registration and reporting requirements, the median number of full-time equivalent staff is 0.08 (interquartile range = 0.02–0.25). Because of non-response and social desirability, this could be a “best case” scenario. Conclusions Before the compliance date for The Final Rule, some academic organizations had policies and resources that facilitate clinical trial registration and reporting. Most organizations appear to be unprepared to meet the new requirements. Organizations could enact the following: adopt policies that require trial registration and reporting, allocate resources (e.g., staff, software) to support registration and reporting, and ensure there are consequences for investigators who do not follow standards for clinical research.http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12916-018-1042-6Clinical trialsTrial registrationResults reportingReporting bias |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Evan Mayo-Wilson James Heyward Anthony Keyes Jesse Reynolds Sarah White Nidhi Atri G. Caleb Alexander Audrey Omar Daniel E. Ford on behalf of the National Clinical Trials Registration and Results Reporting Taskforce Survey Subcommittee |
spellingShingle |
Evan Mayo-Wilson James Heyward Anthony Keyes Jesse Reynolds Sarah White Nidhi Atri G. Caleb Alexander Audrey Omar Daniel E. Ford on behalf of the National Clinical Trials Registration and Results Reporting Taskforce Survey Subcommittee Clinical trial registration and reporting: a survey of academic organizations in the United States BMC Medicine Clinical trials Trial registration Results reporting Reporting bias |
author_facet |
Evan Mayo-Wilson James Heyward Anthony Keyes Jesse Reynolds Sarah White Nidhi Atri G. Caleb Alexander Audrey Omar Daniel E. Ford on behalf of the National Clinical Trials Registration and Results Reporting Taskforce Survey Subcommittee |
author_sort |
Evan Mayo-Wilson |
title |
Clinical trial registration and reporting: a survey of academic organizations in the United States |
title_short |
Clinical trial registration and reporting: a survey of academic organizations in the United States |
title_full |
Clinical trial registration and reporting: a survey of academic organizations in the United States |
title_fullStr |
Clinical trial registration and reporting: a survey of academic organizations in the United States |
title_full_unstemmed |
Clinical trial registration and reporting: a survey of academic organizations in the United States |
title_sort |
clinical trial registration and reporting: a survey of academic organizations in the united states |
publisher |
BMC |
series |
BMC Medicine |
issn |
1741-7015 |
publishDate |
2018-05-01 |
description |
Abstract Background Many clinical trials conducted by academic organizations are not published, or are not published completely. Following the US Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007, “The Final Rule” (compliance date April 18, 2017) and a National Institutes of Health policy clarified and expanded trial registration and results reporting requirements. We sought to identify policies, procedures, and resources to support trial registration and reporting at academic organizations. Methods We conducted an online survey from November 21, 2016 to March 1, 2017, before organizations were expected to comply with The Final Rule. We included active Protocol Registration and Results System (PRS) accounts classified by ClinicalTrials.gov as a “University/Organization” in the USA. PRS administrators manage information on ClinicalTrials.gov. We invited one PRS administrator to complete the survey for each organization account, which was the unit of analysis. Results Eligible organization accounts (N = 783) included 47,701 records (e.g., studies) in August 2016. Participating organizations (366/783; 47%) included 40,351/47,701 (85%) records. Compared with other organizations, Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) holders, cancer centers, and large organizations were more likely to participate. A minority of accounts have a registration (156/366; 43%) or results reporting policy (129/366; 35%). Of those with policies, 15/156 (11%) and 49/156 (35%) reported that trials must be registered before institutional review board approval is granted or before beginning enrollment, respectively. Few organizations use computer software to monitor compliance (68/366; 19%). One organization had penalized an investigator for non-compliance. Among the 287/366 (78%) accounts reporting that they allocate staff to fulfill ClinicalTrials.gov registration and reporting requirements, the median number of full-time equivalent staff is 0.08 (interquartile range = 0.02–0.25). Because of non-response and social desirability, this could be a “best case” scenario. Conclusions Before the compliance date for The Final Rule, some academic organizations had policies and resources that facilitate clinical trial registration and reporting. Most organizations appear to be unprepared to meet the new requirements. Organizations could enact the following: adopt policies that require trial registration and reporting, allocate resources (e.g., staff, software) to support registration and reporting, and ensure there are consequences for investigators who do not follow standards for clinical research. |
topic |
Clinical trials Trial registration Results reporting Reporting bias |
url |
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12916-018-1042-6 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT evanmayowilson clinicaltrialregistrationandreportingasurveyofacademicorganizationsintheunitedstates AT jamesheyward clinicaltrialregistrationandreportingasurveyofacademicorganizationsintheunitedstates AT anthonykeyes clinicaltrialregistrationandreportingasurveyofacademicorganizationsintheunitedstates AT jessereynolds clinicaltrialregistrationandreportingasurveyofacademicorganizationsintheunitedstates AT sarahwhite clinicaltrialregistrationandreportingasurveyofacademicorganizationsintheunitedstates AT nidhiatri clinicaltrialregistrationandreportingasurveyofacademicorganizationsintheunitedstates AT gcalebalexander clinicaltrialregistrationandreportingasurveyofacademicorganizationsintheunitedstates AT audreyomar clinicaltrialregistrationandreportingasurveyofacademicorganizationsintheunitedstates AT danieleford clinicaltrialregistrationandreportingasurveyofacademicorganizationsintheunitedstates AT onbehalfofthenationalclinicaltrialsregistrationandresultsreportingtaskforcesurveysubcommittee clinicaltrialregistrationandreportingasurveyofacademicorganizationsintheunitedstates |
_version_ |
1725902576957784064 |