Background: Whether there is sufficient capacity and capability for the successful conduct and delivery of a clinical trial should be assessed by several stakeholders according to transparent and evidence-based criteria during trial planning. For this openly shared, user-tested, and validated tools are necessary. Therefore, we systematically examined the public availability and content of checklists which assess the study-level feasibility in the planning phase of clinical trials.

Methods: In our scoping review we systematically searched Medline, EMBASE, and Google (last search, June 2021). We included all publicly available checklists or tools that assessed study level feasibility of clinical trials, examined their content, and checked whether they were user-tested or validated in any form. Data was analysed and synthesised using conventional content analysis.

Results: A total of 10 publicly available checklists from five countries were identified. The checklists included 48 distinct items that were classified according to the following seven different domains of clinical trial feasibility: regulation, review and oversight; participant recruitment; space, material and equipment; financial resources; trial team resources; trial management; and pilot or feasibility studies. None of the available checklists appeared to be user-tested or validated.

Conclusions: Although a number of publicly available checklists to assess the feasibility of clinical trials exist, their reliability and usefulness remain unclear. Openly shared, user-tested, and validated feasibility assessment tools for a better planning of clinical trials are lacking.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9118562PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01617-6DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

publicly checklists
16
clinical trial
12
user-tested validated
12
clinical trials
12
scoping review
8
trial feasibility
8
openly shared
8
shared user-tested
8
checklists assess
8
feasibility clinical
8

Similar Publications

Introduction: Technology-facilitated sexual violence and abuse (TFSVA) refers to a range of behaviours in which digital technologies are used to facilitate both virtual and face-to-face sexual harm. The proliferation of smartphone usage and increasing internet penetration rates across the world have made it easier for individuals to become perpetrators and victims of TFSVA. Since empirical studies of TFSVA remain limited in the academic arena, and there is an absence of evidence to support the development of a standardised TFSVA measurement, this review aims to explore what TFSVA measurements are currently available and their potential use in measuring TFSVA.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Introduction: The Reporting Recommendation Intended for Pharmaceutical Risk Minimisation Evaluation Studies (RIMES) checklist is endorsed by the European Network of Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance (ENCePP) and is tailored for studies assessing Risk Minimisation Measures and Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (RMM/REMS) effectiveness; however, its awareness and usage remain unknown. We evaluated the implementation of the RIMES checklist in RMM/REMS effectiveness studies registered in the EUPAS register during 01 December 2017- 01 January 2024. Furthermore, the awareness and utilization of the RIMES checklist among researchers conducting RMM/REMS effectiveness studies was assessed.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Disproportionality analyses are the most-commonly used study design used in the post-marketing phase to detect suspected adverse drug reactions in individual case safety reports. Recent years have witnessed an exponential increase in published articles on disproportionality analyses, thanks to publicly accessible databases. Unfortunately, this trend was accompanied by concerns on lack of transparency and misinterpretation of results, both generating unjustified alarm and diluting true signals into overwhelming noise.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF
Article Synopsis
  • - The text outlines a scoping review protocol aimed at investigating how gamification can enhance clinical reasoning skills in medical education by increasing engagement and knowledge retention in healthcare professionals.
  • - Using the Arksey and O'Malley framework and guidelines from the Joanna Briggs Institute, the review will systematically search major databases for relevant literature, focusing on studies that employ gamified strategies in clinical reasoning education.
  • - The findings will provide a synthesis of the different gamification methods used in the educational context, identify gaps in current research, and do so without requiring ethical approval, following established reporting guidelines to ensure transparency.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Deep learning techniques hold immense promise for advancing medical image analysis, particularly in tasks like image segmentation, where precise annotation of regions or volumes of interest within medical images is crucial but manually laborious and prone to interobserver and intraobserver biases. As such, deep learning approaches could provide automated solutions for such applications. However, the potential of these techniques is often undermined by challenges in reproducibility and generalizability, which are key barriers to their clinical adoption.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!