临床试验完整性国际共识文件

Pub Date : 2024-07-11 DOI:10.1016/j.semerg.2024.102217
Grupo de Consenso de El Cairo sobre la Integridad de la Investigación
{"title":"临床试验完整性国际共识文件","authors":"Grupo de Consenso de El Cairo sobre la Integridad de la Investigación","doi":"10.1016/j.semerg.2024.102217","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Science integrity initiatives require specific recommendations for randomised clinical trials (RCT).</p></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To prepare a set of statements for RCT integrity through an international multi-stakeholder consensus.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>The consensus was developed via multi-country multidisciplinary stakeholder group composition and engagement; evidence synthesis of 55 systematic reviews concerning RCT integrity; anonymised two-round modified Delphi survey with consensus threshold based on the average percent of majority opinions; and, a final consensus development meeting.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>There were 30 stakeholders representing 15 countries from 5 continents including trialists, ethicists, methodologists, statisticians, consumer representative, industry representative, systematic reviewers, funding body panel members, regulatory experts, authors, journal editors, peer-reviewers and advisors for resolving integrity concerns. Delphi survey response rate was 86.7% (26/30 stakeholders). There were 111 statements (73 stakeholder-provided, 46 systematic review-generated, 8 supported by both) in the initial long list, with 8 additional statements provided during the consensus rounds. Through consensus the final set consolidated 81 statements (49 stakeholder-provided, 41 systematic review-generated, 9 supported by both). The entire RCT life cycle was covered by the set of statements including general aspects (n<!--> <!-->=<!--> <!-->6), design and approval (n<!--> <!-->=<!--> <!-->11), conduct and monitoring (n<!--> <!-->=<!--> <!-->19), reporting of protocols and findings (n<!--> <!-->=<!--> <!-->20), post-publication concerns (n<!--> <!-->=<!--> <!-->12), and future research and development (n<!--> <!-->=<!--> <!-->13).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Implementation of this multi-stakeholder consensus statement is expected to enhance RCT integrity.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-07-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Documento de consenso internacional sobre la integridad de los ensayos clínicos\",\"authors\":\"Grupo de Consenso de El Cairo sobre la Integridad de la Investigación\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.semerg.2024.102217\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Science integrity initiatives require specific recommendations for randomised clinical trials (RCT).</p></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To prepare a set of statements for RCT integrity through an international multi-stakeholder consensus.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>The consensus was developed via multi-country multidisciplinary stakeholder group composition and engagement; evidence synthesis of 55 systematic reviews concerning RCT integrity; anonymised two-round modified Delphi survey with consensus threshold based on the average percent of majority opinions; and, a final consensus development meeting.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>There were 30 stakeholders representing 15 countries from 5 continents including trialists, ethicists, methodologists, statisticians, consumer representative, industry representative, systematic reviewers, funding body panel members, regulatory experts, authors, journal editors, peer-reviewers and advisors for resolving integrity concerns. Delphi survey response rate was 86.7% (26/30 stakeholders). There were 111 statements (73 stakeholder-provided, 46 systematic review-generated, 8 supported by both) in the initial long list, with 8 additional statements provided during the consensus rounds. Through consensus the final set consolidated 81 statements (49 stakeholder-provided, 41 systematic review-generated, 9 supported by both). The entire RCT life cycle was covered by the set of statements including general aspects (n<!--> <!-->=<!--> <!-->6), design and approval (n<!--> <!-->=<!--> <!-->11), conduct and monitoring (n<!--> <!-->=<!--> <!-->19), reporting of protocols and findings (n<!--> <!-->=<!--> <!-->20), post-publication concerns (n<!--> <!-->=<!--> <!-->12), and future research and development (n<!--> <!-->=<!--> <!-->13).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Implementation of this multi-stakeholder consensus statement is expected to enhance RCT integrity.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":0,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1138359324000273\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1138359324000273","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景科学诚信倡议要求对随机临床试验 (RCT) 提出具体建议。方法通过多国多学科利益相关者小组的组成和参与、对 55 篇有关 RCT 诚信的系统综述进行证据综合、根据多数意见的平均百分比确定共识阈值的匿名两轮改良德尔菲调查以及最终的共识制定会议来达成共识。结果来自 5 大洲 15 个国家的 30 名利益相关者参加了会议,其中包括试验人员、伦理学家、方法论专家、统计学家、消费者代表、行业代表、系统综述人员、资助机构专家组成员、监管专家、作者、期刊编辑、同行评审人员以及解决诚信问题的顾问。德尔菲调查的回复率为 86.7%(26/30 位利益相关者)。最初的长清单中共有 111 项声明(73 项由利益相关者提供,46 项由系统综述产生,8 项同时得到两者的支持),另有 8 项声明是在达成共识的过程中提供的。通过达成共识,最终合并了 81 项声明(49 项由利益相关者提供,41 项由系统综述生成,9 项由利益相关者和系统综述共同支持)。这套声明涵盖了 RCT 的整个生命周期,包括一般方面(6 项)、设计和批准(11 项)、实施和监测(19 项)、报告方案和研究结果(20 项)、发表后的关注(12 项)以及未来的研究和发展(13 项)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享
查看原文
Documento de consenso internacional sobre la integridad de los ensayos clínicos

Background

Science integrity initiatives require specific recommendations for randomised clinical trials (RCT).

Objective

To prepare a set of statements for RCT integrity through an international multi-stakeholder consensus.

Methods

The consensus was developed via multi-country multidisciplinary stakeholder group composition and engagement; evidence synthesis of 55 systematic reviews concerning RCT integrity; anonymised two-round modified Delphi survey with consensus threshold based on the average percent of majority opinions; and, a final consensus development meeting.

Results

There were 30 stakeholders representing 15 countries from 5 continents including trialists, ethicists, methodologists, statisticians, consumer representative, industry representative, systematic reviewers, funding body panel members, regulatory experts, authors, journal editors, peer-reviewers and advisors for resolving integrity concerns. Delphi survey response rate was 86.7% (26/30 stakeholders). There were 111 statements (73 stakeholder-provided, 46 systematic review-generated, 8 supported by both) in the initial long list, with 8 additional statements provided during the consensus rounds. Through consensus the final set consolidated 81 statements (49 stakeholder-provided, 41 systematic review-generated, 9 supported by both). The entire RCT life cycle was covered by the set of statements including general aspects (n = 6), design and approval (n = 11), conduct and monitoring (n = 19), reporting of protocols and findings (n = 20), post-publication concerns (n = 12), and future research and development (n = 13).

Conclusion

Implementation of this multi-stakeholder consensus statement is expected to enhance RCT integrity.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信