Cargando…

Best practice for analysis of shared clinical trial data

BACKGROUND: Greater transparency, including sharing of patient-level data for further research, is an increasingly important topic for organisations who sponsor, fund and conduct clinical trials. This is a major paradigm shift with the aim of maximising the value of patient-level data from clinical...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hollis, Sally, Fletcher, Christine, Lynn, Frances, Urban, Hans-Joerg, Branson, Janice, Burger, Hans-Ulrich, Tudur Smith, Catrin, Sydes, Matthew R., Gerlinger, Christoph
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4943488/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27410240
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-016-0170-y
_version_ 1782442602692345856
author Hollis, Sally
Fletcher, Christine
Lynn, Frances
Urban, Hans-Joerg
Branson, Janice
Burger, Hans-Ulrich
Tudur Smith, Catrin
Sydes, Matthew R.
Gerlinger, Christoph
author_facet Hollis, Sally
Fletcher, Christine
Lynn, Frances
Urban, Hans-Joerg
Branson, Janice
Burger, Hans-Ulrich
Tudur Smith, Catrin
Sydes, Matthew R.
Gerlinger, Christoph
author_sort Hollis, Sally
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Greater transparency, including sharing of patient-level data for further research, is an increasingly important topic for organisations who sponsor, fund and conduct clinical trials. This is a major paradigm shift with the aim of maximising the value of patient-level data from clinical trials for the benefit of future patients and society. We consider the analysis of shared clinical trial data in three broad categories: (1) reanalysis - further investigation of the efficacy and safety of the randomized intervention, (2) meta-analysis, and (3) supplemental analysis for a research question that is not directly assessing the randomized intervention. DISCUSSION: In order to support appropriate interpretation and limit the risk of misleading findings, analysis of shared clinical trial data should have a pre-specified analysis plan. However, it is not generally possible to limit bias and control multiplicity to the extent that is possible in the original trial design, conduct and analysis, and this should be acknowledged and taken into account when interpreting results. We highlight a number of areas where specific considerations arise in planning, conducting, interpreting and reporting analyses of shared clinical trial data. A key issue is that that these analyses essentially share many of the limitations of any post hoc analyses beyond the original specified analyses. The use of individual patient data in meta-analysis can provide increased precision and reduce bias. Supplemental analyses are subject to many of the same issues that arise in broader epidemiological analyses. Specific discussion topics are addressed within each of these areas. SUMMARY: Increased provision of patient-level data from industry and academic-led clinical trials for secondary research can benefit future patients and society. Responsible data sharing, including transparency of the research objectives, analysis plans and of the results will support appropriate interpretation and help to address the risk of misleading results and avoid unfounded health scares.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4943488
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-49434882016-07-26 Best practice for analysis of shared clinical trial data Hollis, Sally Fletcher, Christine Lynn, Frances Urban, Hans-Joerg Branson, Janice Burger, Hans-Ulrich Tudur Smith, Catrin Sydes, Matthew R. Gerlinger, Christoph BMC Med Res Methodol Correspondence Article BACKGROUND: Greater transparency, including sharing of patient-level data for further research, is an increasingly important topic for organisations who sponsor, fund and conduct clinical trials. This is a major paradigm shift with the aim of maximising the value of patient-level data from clinical trials for the benefit of future patients and society. We consider the analysis of shared clinical trial data in three broad categories: (1) reanalysis - further investigation of the efficacy and safety of the randomized intervention, (2) meta-analysis, and (3) supplemental analysis for a research question that is not directly assessing the randomized intervention. DISCUSSION: In order to support appropriate interpretation and limit the risk of misleading findings, analysis of shared clinical trial data should have a pre-specified analysis plan. However, it is not generally possible to limit bias and control multiplicity to the extent that is possible in the original trial design, conduct and analysis, and this should be acknowledged and taken into account when interpreting results. We highlight a number of areas where specific considerations arise in planning, conducting, interpreting and reporting analyses of shared clinical trial data. A key issue is that that these analyses essentially share many of the limitations of any post hoc analyses beyond the original specified analyses. The use of individual patient data in meta-analysis can provide increased precision and reduce bias. Supplemental analyses are subject to many of the same issues that arise in broader epidemiological analyses. Specific discussion topics are addressed within each of these areas. SUMMARY: Increased provision of patient-level data from industry and academic-led clinical trials for secondary research can benefit future patients and society. Responsible data sharing, including transparency of the research objectives, analysis plans and of the results will support appropriate interpretation and help to address the risk of misleading results and avoid unfounded health scares. BioMed Central 2016-07-08 /pmc/articles/PMC4943488/ /pubmed/27410240 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-016-0170-y Text en © The Author(s). 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Correspondence Article
Hollis, Sally
Fletcher, Christine
Lynn, Frances
Urban, Hans-Joerg
Branson, Janice
Burger, Hans-Ulrich
Tudur Smith, Catrin
Sydes, Matthew R.
Gerlinger, Christoph
Best practice for analysis of shared clinical trial data
title Best practice for analysis of shared clinical trial data
title_full Best practice for analysis of shared clinical trial data
title_fullStr Best practice for analysis of shared clinical trial data
title_full_unstemmed Best practice for analysis of shared clinical trial data
title_short Best practice for analysis of shared clinical trial data
title_sort best practice for analysis of shared clinical trial data
topic Correspondence Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4943488/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27410240
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-016-0170-y
work_keys_str_mv AT hollissally bestpracticeforanalysisofsharedclinicaltrialdata
AT fletcherchristine bestpracticeforanalysisofsharedclinicaltrialdata
AT lynnfrances bestpracticeforanalysisofsharedclinicaltrialdata
AT urbanhansjoerg bestpracticeforanalysisofsharedclinicaltrialdata
AT bransonjanice bestpracticeforanalysisofsharedclinicaltrialdata
AT burgerhansulrich bestpracticeforanalysisofsharedclinicaltrialdata
AT tudursmithcatrin bestpracticeforanalysisofsharedclinicaltrialdata
AT sydesmatthewr bestpracticeforanalysisofsharedclinicaltrialdata
AT gerlingerchristoph bestpracticeforanalysisofsharedclinicaltrialdata