Fate of clinical research studies after ethical approval--follow-up of study protocols until publication.

BACKGROUND: Many clinical studies are ultimately not fully published in peer-reviewed journals. Underreporting of clinical research is wasteful and can result in biased estimates of treatment effect or harm, leading to recommendations that are inappropriate or even dangerous. METHODS: We assembled a cohort of clinical studies approved 2000-2002 by the Research Ethics Committee of the University of Freiburg, Germany. Published full articles were searched in electronic databases and investigators contacted. Data on study characteristics were extracted from protocols and corresponding publications. We characterized the cohort, quantified its publication outcome and compared protocols and publications for selected aspects. RESULTS: Of 917 approved studies, 807 were started and 110 were not, either locally or as a whole. Of the started studies, 576 (71%) were completed according to protocol, 128 (16%) discontinued and 42 (5%) are still ongoing; for 61 (8%) there was no information about their course. We identified 782 full publications corresponding to 419 of the 807 initiated studies; the publication proportion was 52% (95% CI: 0.48-0.55). Study design was not significantly associated with subsequent publication. Multicentre status, international collaboration, large sample size and commercial or non-commercial funding were positively associated with subsequent publication. Commercial funding was mentioned in 203 (48%) protocols and in 205 (49%) of the publications. In most published studies (339; 81%) this information corresponded between protocol and publication. Most studies were published in English (367; 88%); some in German (25; 6%) or both languages (27; 6%). The local investigators were listed as (co-)authors in the publications corresponding to 259 (62%) studies. CONCLUSION: Half of the clinical research conducted at a large German university medical centre remains unpublished; future research is built on an incomplete database. Research resources are likely wasted as neither health care professionals nor patients nor policy makers can use the results when making decisions.

Clinical research projects at a German medical faculty: follow-up from ethical approval to publication and citation by others

BACKGROUND: Only data of published study results are available to the scientific community for further use such as informing future research and synthesis of available evidence. If study results are reported selectively, reporting bias and distortion of summarised estimates of effect or harm of treatments can occur. The publication and citation of results of clinical research conducted in Germany was studied. METHODS: The protocols of clinical research projects submitted to the research ethics committee of the University of Freiburg (Germany) in 2000 were analysed. Published full articles in several databases were searched and investigators contacted. Data on study and publication characteristics were extracted from protocols and corresponding publications. RESULTS: 299 study protocols were included. The most frequent study design was randomised controlled trial (141; 47%), followed by uncontrolled studies (61; 20%), laboratory studies (30; 10%) and non-randomised studies (29; 10%). 182 (61%) were multicentre studies including 97 (53%) international collaborations. 152 of 299 (51%) had commercial (co-)funding and 46 (15%) non-commercial funding. 109 of the 225 completed protocols corresponded to at least one full publication (total 210 articles); the publication rate was 48%. 168 of 210 identified publications (80%) were cited in articles indexed in the ISI Web of Science. The median was 11 citations per publication (range 0-1151). CONCLUSIONS: Results of German clinical research projects conducted are largely underreported. Barriers to successful publication need to be identified and appropriate measures taken. Close monitoring of projects until publication and adequate support provided to investigators may help remedy the prevailing underreporting of research.

Clinical Research: Room for all?

no abstract

Five-Year Review of an International Clinical Research-Training Program

The exponential increase in clinical research has profoundly changed medical sciences. Evidence that has accumulated in the past three decades from clinical trials has led to the proposal that clinical care should not be based solely on clinical expertise and patient values, and should integrate robust data from systematic research. As a consequence, clinical research has become more complex and methods have become more rigorous, and evidence is usually not easily translated into clinical practice. Therefore, the instruction of clinical research methods for scientists and clinicians must adapt to this new reality. To address this challenge, a global distance-learning clinical research-training program was developed, based on collaborative learning, the pedagogical goal of which was to develop critical thinking skills in clinical research. We describe and analyze the challenges and possible solutions of this course after 5 years of experience (2008-2012) with this program. Through evaluation by students and faculty, we identified and reviewed the following challenges of our program: 1) student engagement and motivation, 2) impact of heterogeneous audience on learning, 3) learning in large groups, 4) enhancing group learning, 5) enhancing social presence, 6) dropouts, 7) quality control, and 8) course management. We discuss these issues and potential alternatives with regard to our research and background.

Bioprocess engineering of induced pluripotent stem cells for application in cell therapy and pre-clinical research

Dissertation to obtain Master Degree in Biotechnology

Novel Cryopreservation Strategies for Cell‐Therapies and Pre‐Clinical Research

The expanding need for complex biologics for therapeutic applications, in‐vitro pharmacology and toxicology studies and fundamental research demands the production of banks of well‐characterized and safety‐tested stocks of a large number of cell/tissue samples. This implies the development of effective cryopreservation methodologies that can cope with process scalability and automation and must reflect the biological and physical properties of the cells as these can be significantly altered by the process.

Clinical research monitoring: scenarios and challenges

Clinical research is essential for the development of new drugs, diagnostic tests and new devices. Clinical monitoring is implemented to improve the quality of research and attain high ethical and scientific standards. This review discusses the role of clinical monitors, taking into account the variety of scenarios in which medical research is developed, and highlights the challenges faced by research teams to ensure that patients rights are respected and that the social role of scientific research is preserved. Specific emphasis is given to the ethical dilemmas related to the multiple roles which clinical monitors play in the research framework, mainly those involving the delicate equilibrium between the loyalty to the sponsor and to the research subjects. The essential role of clinical monitoring for research developed in poor healthcare scenarios is highlighted as an approach to get the local infrastructure strengthening needed to achieve an adequate level of good clinical practices.

Need of reduced and harmonized bureaucracy in multi-centre clinical research - a case-report from a Swiss trial

Introduction We launched an investigator-initiated study(ISRCTN31181395) to evaluate the potential benefit of pharmacokinetic-guided dosage individualization of imatinib for leukaemia patients followed in public and private sectors. Following approval by the research ethics committee (REC) of the coordinating centre, recruitment throughout Switzerland necessitated to submit the protocol to 11 cantonal RECs.Materials and Methods We analysed requirements and evaluation procedures of the 12 RECs with associated costs.Results 1-18 copies of the dossier, in total 4300 printed pages, were required (printing/posting costs: ~300 CHF) to meet initial requirements. Meeting frequencies of RECs ranged between 2 weeks and 2 months, time from submission to first feedback took 2-75 days. Study approval was obtained from a chairman, a subor the full committee, the evaluation work being invoiced by 0-1000 CHF (median: 750 CHF, total: 9200 CHF). While 5 RECs gave immediate approval, the other 6 rose in total 38 queries before study release, mainly related to wording in the patient information, leading to 7 different final versions approved. Submission tasks employed an investigator half-time over about 6 months.Conclusion While the necessity of clinical research evaluation by independent RECs is undisputed, there is a need of further harmonization and cooperation in evaluation procedures. Current administrative burden is indeed complex, time-consuming and costly. A harmonized electronic application form, preferably compatible with other regulatory bodies and European countries, could increase transparency, improve communication, and encourage academic multi-centre clinical research in Switzerland.

Clinical research: how to be involved

The Northern Ireland Clinical Research Network (NICRN) undertakes research in a range of medical fields, which have recently been expanded to include mental health. The NICRN is part of a UK-wide initiative to provide opportunities for patients and clinicians to participate in high-quality clinical research.This suite of leaflets provides both the public and clinical researchers with an introduction to the work of the NICRN. They provide an overview of the NICRN's goals and highlight what the network can offer to patients, carers and researchers. Each leaflet includes specific details on the NICRN's work in that area and reasons why clinical research plays such a vital role in improving the delivery of health and social care