Clinical Study Reports-a systematic review with thematic synthesis: Part 1. History, contents and structure, definitions, and terminology.

IF 2 4区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Trials Pub Date : 2025-04-29 DOI:10.1186/s13063-024-08710-9
J K Aronson, I J Onakpoya
{"title":"Clinical Study Reports-a systematic review with thematic synthesis: Part 1. History, contents and structure, definitions, and terminology.","authors":"J K Aronson, I J Onakpoya","doi":"10.1186/s13063-024-08710-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Clinical study reports (CSRs) are standardized full reports of the protocols, results, and other pertinent details of clinical studies that are typically submitted by pharmaceutical companies to regulatory authorities, as part of the drug approval process. Their recommended contents and structure were described in 1995 in a document of the International Conference on Harmonisation, ICH E3, although companies can choose how to present the data. Until 2015, such reports were not readily available to the public, but since then some regulatory authorities have made them available, as have some pharmaceutical companies, albeit often in abbreviated or redacted versions. The apparent benefits of pharmacological interventions are not as impressive when they are calculated using data from clinical study reports compared with published trial reports, and more information emerges about harms the interventions can cause.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our methods are described in Part 2 of this systematic review with thematic synthesis, in which we have summarized the uses of CSRs, as described in 349 publications of various sorts, including analyses of clinical trials, data analyses, commentaries, and official documents. We have specifically concentrated on how CSRs affect assessments of benefits, harms, and the benefit-to-harm balance, and other factors that affect it. In Part 1, we discuss the history of the development of CSRs, their contents and structure, definitions of CSRs and qualifying terms, and relevant terminology (including the availability of CSRs, data sharing systems, and transparency and confidentiality).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our conclusions are listed in Part 2 of this review.</p>","PeriodicalId":23333,"journal":{"name":"Trials","volume":"26 1","pages":"141"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12042613/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Trials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-024-08710-9","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Clinical study reports (CSRs) are standardized full reports of the protocols, results, and other pertinent details of clinical studies that are typically submitted by pharmaceutical companies to regulatory authorities, as part of the drug approval process. Their recommended contents and structure were described in 1995 in a document of the International Conference on Harmonisation, ICH E3, although companies can choose how to present the data. Until 2015, such reports were not readily available to the public, but since then some regulatory authorities have made them available, as have some pharmaceutical companies, albeit often in abbreviated or redacted versions. The apparent benefits of pharmacological interventions are not as impressive when they are calculated using data from clinical study reports compared with published trial reports, and more information emerges about harms the interventions can cause.

Results: Our methods are described in Part 2 of this systematic review with thematic synthesis, in which we have summarized the uses of CSRs, as described in 349 publications of various sorts, including analyses of clinical trials, data analyses, commentaries, and official documents. We have specifically concentrated on how CSRs affect assessments of benefits, harms, and the benefit-to-harm balance, and other factors that affect it. In Part 1, we discuss the history of the development of CSRs, their contents and structure, definitions of CSRs and qualifying terms, and relevant terminology (including the availability of CSRs, data sharing systems, and transparency and confidentiality).

Conclusions: Our conclusions are listed in Part 2 of this review.

临床研究报告-专题综合的系统综述:第一部分。历史、内容和结构、定义和术语。
背景:临床研究报告(CSRs)是标准化的临床研究方案、结果和其他相关细节的完整报告,通常由制药公司提交给监管机构,作为药物批准过程的一部分。他们推荐的内容和结构在1995年国际协调会议(ICH E3)的一份文件中有描述,尽管公司可以选择如何呈现数据。直到2015年,公众还无法轻易获得此类报告,但自那以来,一些监管机构和一些制药公司已经提供了这些报告,尽管通常是缩略或编辑的版本。当使用临床研究报告的数据与已发表的试验报告进行比较时,药物干预的明显益处并不令人印象深刻,并且有关干预可能造成的危害的更多信息出现了。结果:我们的方法在本专题综合系统综述的第2部分中进行了描述,其中我们总结了社会责任报告的用途,如349种不同类型的出版物所描述的,包括临床试验分析、数据分析、评论和官方文件。我们特别关注企业社会责任如何影响效益、危害、效益与危害平衡的评估,以及其他影响它的因素。在第1部分中,我们将讨论csr的发展历史、它们的内容和结构、csr的定义和限定术语,以及相关术语(包括csr的可用性、数据共享系统、透明度和保密性)。结论:我们的结论列在本综述的第2部分。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Trials
Trials 医学-医学:研究与实验
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
4.00%
发文量
966
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Trials is an open access, peer-reviewed, online journal that will encompass all aspects of the performance and findings of randomized controlled trials. Trials will experiment with, and then refine, innovative approaches to improving communication about trials. We are keen to move beyond publishing traditional trial results articles (although these will be included). We believe this represents an exciting opportunity to advance the science and reporting of trials. Prior to 2006, Trials was published as Current Controlled Trials in Cardiovascular Medicine (CCTCVM). All published CCTCVM articles are available via the Trials website and citations to CCTCVM article URLs will continue to be supported.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信