评估临床试验方案文件质量的方案质量评定工具(PQRT)的开发和测试

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Angela K. Lyden, Claire Z. Kalpakjian, Cathie Spino, Susan L. Murphy, Julie C. Lumeng, Anna S. Lok
{"title":"评估临床试验方案文件质量的方案质量评定工具(PQRT)的开发和测试","authors":"Angela K. Lyden,&nbsp;Claire Z. Kalpakjian,&nbsp;Cathie Spino,&nbsp;Susan L. Murphy,&nbsp;Julie C. Lumeng,&nbsp;Anna S. Lok","doi":"10.1111/cts.70240","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>A high-quality protocol document is essential for the successful and efficient implementation of clinical trials, but there is no consensus on how clinical trial protocol document quality should be evaluated. We used a modified Delphi approach and cognitive interviews to develop a new protocol document quality assessment tool, the <i>Protocol Quality Rating Tool (PQRT)</i>. We compiled a checklist of elements that should be included in a high-quality trial protocol document and asked experts to rate the importance of each element. We developed the <i>PQRT</i> by describing the expected content of each element and identified essential vs. additional (bonus) content to differentiate high- versus low-quality protocol documents and then organized the elements into 18 sections. We revised the <i>PQRT</i> based on feedback from and cognitive interviews with our protocol quality rating team. We then tested the <i>PQRT</i> using ten protocol documents previously approved by the Institutional Review Board. All the protocol quality raters found the tool easy to use and their scores were highly concordant for eight of ten protocol documents. We have developed and tested a simple tool to measure clinical trial protocol document quality and encourage other researchers to evaluate and validate it.</p>","PeriodicalId":50610,"journal":{"name":"Cts-Clinical and Translational Science","volume":"18 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cts.70240","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Development and Testing of the Protocol Quality Rating Tool (PQRT) to Evaluate Clinical Trial Protocol Document Quality\",\"authors\":\"Angela K. Lyden,&nbsp;Claire Z. Kalpakjian,&nbsp;Cathie Spino,&nbsp;Susan L. Murphy,&nbsp;Julie C. Lumeng,&nbsp;Anna S. Lok\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/cts.70240\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>A high-quality protocol document is essential for the successful and efficient implementation of clinical trials, but there is no consensus on how clinical trial protocol document quality should be evaluated. We used a modified Delphi approach and cognitive interviews to develop a new protocol document quality assessment tool, the <i>Protocol Quality Rating Tool (PQRT)</i>. We compiled a checklist of elements that should be included in a high-quality trial protocol document and asked experts to rate the importance of each element. We developed the <i>PQRT</i> by describing the expected content of each element and identified essential vs. additional (bonus) content to differentiate high- versus low-quality protocol documents and then organized the elements into 18 sections. We revised the <i>PQRT</i> based on feedback from and cognitive interviews with our protocol quality rating team. We then tested the <i>PQRT</i> using ten protocol documents previously approved by the Institutional Review Board. All the protocol quality raters found the tool easy to use and their scores were highly concordant for eight of ten protocol documents. We have developed and tested a simple tool to measure clinical trial protocol document quality and encourage other researchers to evaluate and validate it.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50610,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cts-Clinical and Translational Science\",\"volume\":\"18 5\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cts.70240\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cts-Clinical and Translational Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cts.70240\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cts-Clinical and Translational Science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cts.70240","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

一份高质量的方案文件对于临床试验的成功和有效实施至关重要,但如何评估临床试验方案文件的质量尚未达成共识。我们使用改进的德尔菲法和认知访谈来开发一种新的协议文件质量评估工具——协议质量评级工具(PQRT)。我们编制了一份高质量试验方案文件中应包括的要素清单,并请专家对每个要素的重要性进行评分。我们通过描述每个元素的预期内容来开发PQRT,并确定基本内容与额外(奖励)内容,以区分高质量与低质量的协议文档,然后将元素组织为18个部分。我们根据协议质量评估团队的反馈和认知访谈对PQRT进行了修订。然后,我们使用机构审查委员会先前批准的十份协议文件测试了PQRT。所有协议质量评分者都发现该工具易于使用,并且他们的分数在10个协议文档中有8个高度一致。我们已经开发并测试了一个简单的工具来衡量临床试验方案文件的质量,并鼓励其他研究人员对其进行评估和验证。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Development and Testing of the Protocol Quality Rating Tool (PQRT) to Evaluate Clinical Trial Protocol Document Quality

A high-quality protocol document is essential for the successful and efficient implementation of clinical trials, but there is no consensus on how clinical trial protocol document quality should be evaluated. We used a modified Delphi approach and cognitive interviews to develop a new protocol document quality assessment tool, the Protocol Quality Rating Tool (PQRT). We compiled a checklist of elements that should be included in a high-quality trial protocol document and asked experts to rate the importance of each element. We developed the PQRT by describing the expected content of each element and identified essential vs. additional (bonus) content to differentiate high- versus low-quality protocol documents and then organized the elements into 18 sections. We revised the PQRT based on feedback from and cognitive interviews with our protocol quality rating team. We then tested the PQRT using ten protocol documents previously approved by the Institutional Review Board. All the protocol quality raters found the tool easy to use and their scores were highly concordant for eight of ten protocol documents. We have developed and tested a simple tool to measure clinical trial protocol document quality and encourage other researchers to evaluate and validate it.

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
来源期刊
Cts-Clinical and Translational Science
Cts-Clinical and Translational Science 医学-医学:研究与实验
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
2.60%
发文量
234
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical and Translational Science (CTS), an official journal of the American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, highlights original translational medicine research that helps bridge laboratory discoveries with the diagnosis and treatment of human disease. Translational medicine is a multi-faceted discipline with a focus on translational therapeutics. In a broad sense, translational medicine bridges across the discovery, development, regulation, and utilization spectrum. Research may appear as Full Articles, Brief Reports, Commentaries, Phase Forwards (clinical trials), Reviews, or Tutorials. CTS also includes invited didactic content that covers the connections between clinical pharmacology and translational medicine. Best-in-class methodologies and best practices are also welcomed as Tutorials. These additional features provide context for research articles and facilitate understanding for a wide array of individuals interested in clinical and translational science. CTS welcomes high quality, scientifically sound, original manuscripts focused on clinical pharmacology and translational science, including animal, in vitro, in silico, and clinical studies supporting the breadth of drug discovery, development, regulation and clinical use of both traditional drugs and innovative modalities.
×
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