Cargando…

Cross-sectional analysis of UK research studies in 2015: results from a scoping project with the UK Health Research Authority

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether data on research studies held by the UK Health Research Authority (HRA) could be summarised automatically with minimal manual intervention. There are numerous initiatives to reduce research waste by improving the design, conduct, analysis and reporting of clinical st...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Clark, Tim, Wicentowski, Richard H, Sydes, Matthew R
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6196875/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30337312
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022340
_version_ 1783364641584316416
author Clark, Tim
Wicentowski, Richard H
Sydes, Matthew R
author_facet Clark, Tim
Wicentowski, Richard H
Sydes, Matthew R
author_sort Clark, Tim
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: To determine whether data on research studies held by the UK Health Research Authority (HRA) could be summarised automatically with minimal manual intervention. There are numerous initiatives to reduce research waste by improving the design, conduct, analysis and reporting of clinical studies. However, quantitative data on the characteristics of clinical studies and the impact of the various initiatives are limited. DESIGN: Feasibility study, using 1 year of data. SETTING: We worked with the HRA on a pilot study using research applications submitted for UK-wide ethical review. We extracted into a single dataset, information held in anonymised XML files by the Integrated Research Application System (IRAS) and the HRA Assessment Review Portal (HARP). Research applications from 2014 to 2016 were provided. We used standard text extraction methods to assess information held in free-text fields. We use simple, descriptive methods to summarise the research activities that we extracted. PARTICIPANTS: Not applicable—records-based study INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Feasibility of extraction and processing. RESULTS: We successfully imported 1775 non-duplicate research applications from the XML files into a single database. Of these, 963 were randomised controlled trials and 812 were other studies. Most studies received a favourable opinion. There was limited patient and public involvement in the studies. Most, but not all, studies were planned for publication of results. Novel study designs (eg, adaptive and Bayesian designs) were infrequently reported. CONCLUSIONS: We have demonstrated that the data submitted from IRAS to the HRA and its HARP system are accessible and can be queried for information. We strongly encourage the development of fully resourced collaborative projects to further this work. This would aid understanding of how study characteristics change over time and across therapeutic areas, as well as the progress of initiatives to improve the quality and relevance of research studies.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6196875
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-61968752018-10-25 Cross-sectional analysis of UK research studies in 2015: results from a scoping project with the UK Health Research Authority Clark, Tim Wicentowski, Richard H Sydes, Matthew R BMJ Open Research Methods OBJECTIVES: To determine whether data on research studies held by the UK Health Research Authority (HRA) could be summarised automatically with minimal manual intervention. There are numerous initiatives to reduce research waste by improving the design, conduct, analysis and reporting of clinical studies. However, quantitative data on the characteristics of clinical studies and the impact of the various initiatives are limited. DESIGN: Feasibility study, using 1 year of data. SETTING: We worked with the HRA on a pilot study using research applications submitted for UK-wide ethical review. We extracted into a single dataset, information held in anonymised XML files by the Integrated Research Application System (IRAS) and the HRA Assessment Review Portal (HARP). Research applications from 2014 to 2016 were provided. We used standard text extraction methods to assess information held in free-text fields. We use simple, descriptive methods to summarise the research activities that we extracted. PARTICIPANTS: Not applicable—records-based study INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Feasibility of extraction and processing. RESULTS: We successfully imported 1775 non-duplicate research applications from the XML files into a single database. Of these, 963 were randomised controlled trials and 812 were other studies. Most studies received a favourable opinion. There was limited patient and public involvement in the studies. Most, but not all, studies were planned for publication of results. Novel study designs (eg, adaptive and Bayesian designs) were infrequently reported. CONCLUSIONS: We have demonstrated that the data submitted from IRAS to the HRA and its HARP system are accessible and can be queried for information. We strongly encourage the development of fully resourced collaborative projects to further this work. This would aid understanding of how study characteristics change over time and across therapeutic areas, as well as the progress of initiatives to improve the quality and relevance of research studies. BMJ Publishing Group 2018-10-17 /pmc/articles/PMC6196875/ /pubmed/30337312 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022340 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Research Methods
Clark, Tim
Wicentowski, Richard H
Sydes, Matthew R
Cross-sectional analysis of UK research studies in 2015: results from a scoping project with the UK Health Research Authority
title Cross-sectional analysis of UK research studies in 2015: results from a scoping project with the UK Health Research Authority
title_full Cross-sectional analysis of UK research studies in 2015: results from a scoping project with the UK Health Research Authority
title_fullStr Cross-sectional analysis of UK research studies in 2015: results from a scoping project with the UK Health Research Authority
title_full_unstemmed Cross-sectional analysis of UK research studies in 2015: results from a scoping project with the UK Health Research Authority
title_short Cross-sectional analysis of UK research studies in 2015: results from a scoping project with the UK Health Research Authority
title_sort cross-sectional analysis of uk research studies in 2015: results from a scoping project with the uk health research authority
topic Research Methods
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6196875/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30337312
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022340
work_keys_str_mv AT clarktim crosssectionalanalysisofukresearchstudiesin2015resultsfromascopingprojectwiththeukhealthresearchauthority
AT wicentowskirichardh crosssectionalanalysisofukresearchstudiesin2015resultsfromascopingprojectwiththeukhealthresearchauthority
AT sydesmatthewr crosssectionalanalysisofukresearchstudiesin2015resultsfromascopingprojectwiththeukhealthresearchauthority