Cargando…

Recommendations for cellular and molecular pathology input into clinical trials: a systematic review and meta‐aggregation

The SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) 2013 Statement was developed to provide guidance for inclusion of key methodological components in clinical trial protocols. However, these standards do not include guidance specific to pathology input in clinical trials...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lim, Shujing Jane, Gurusamy, Kurinchi, O'Connor, Daniel, Shaaban, Abeer M, Brierley, Daniel, Lewis, Ian, Harrison, David, Kendall, Timothy James, Robinson, Max
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8073003/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33635586
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cjp2.199
_version_ 1783684033428848640
author Lim, Shujing Jane
Gurusamy, Kurinchi
O'Connor, Daniel
Shaaban, Abeer M
Brierley, Daniel
Lewis, Ian
Harrison, David
Kendall, Timothy James
Robinson, Max
author_facet Lim, Shujing Jane
Gurusamy, Kurinchi
O'Connor, Daniel
Shaaban, Abeer M
Brierley, Daniel
Lewis, Ian
Harrison, David
Kendall, Timothy James
Robinson, Max
author_sort Lim, Shujing Jane
collection PubMed
description The SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) 2013 Statement was developed to provide guidance for inclusion of key methodological components in clinical trial protocols. However, these standards do not include guidance specific to pathology input in clinical trials. This systematic review aims to synthesise existing recommendations specific to pathology practice in clinical trials for implementation in trial protocol design. Articles were identified from database searches and deemed eligible for inclusion if they contained: (1) guidance and/or a checklist, which was (2) pathology‐related, with (3) content relevant to clinical trial protocols or could influence a clinical trial protocol design from a pathology perspective and (4) were published in 1996 or later. The quality of individual papers was assessed using the AGREE‐GRS (Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch & Evaluation – Global Rating Scale) tool, and the confidence in cumulative evidence was evaluated using the GRADE‐CERQual (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation–Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach. Extracted recommendations were synthesised using the best fit framework method, which includes thematic analysis followed by a meta‐aggregative approach to synthesis within the framework. Of the 10 184 records screened and 199 full‐text articles reviewed, only 40 guidance resources met the eligibility criteria for inclusion. Recommendations extracted from 22 guidance documents were generalisable enough for data synthesis. Seven recommendation statements were synthesised as follows: (1) multidisciplinary collaboration in trial design with early involvement of pathologists, particularly with respect to the use of biospecimens and associated biomarker/analytical assays and in the evaluation of pathology‐related parameters; (2) funding and training for personnel undertaking trial work; (3) selection of an accredited laboratory with suitable facilities to undertake scheduled work; (4) quality assurance of pathology‐related parameters; (5) transparent reporting of pathology‐related parameters; (6) policies regarding informatics and tracking biospecimens across trial sites; and (7) informed consent for specimen collection and retention for future research.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8073003
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-80730032021-04-29 Recommendations for cellular and molecular pathology input into clinical trials: a systematic review and meta‐aggregation Lim, Shujing Jane Gurusamy, Kurinchi O'Connor, Daniel Shaaban, Abeer M Brierley, Daniel Lewis, Ian Harrison, David Kendall, Timothy James Robinson, Max J Pathol Clin Res Review The SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) 2013 Statement was developed to provide guidance for inclusion of key methodological components in clinical trial protocols. However, these standards do not include guidance specific to pathology input in clinical trials. This systematic review aims to synthesise existing recommendations specific to pathology practice in clinical trials for implementation in trial protocol design. Articles were identified from database searches and deemed eligible for inclusion if they contained: (1) guidance and/or a checklist, which was (2) pathology‐related, with (3) content relevant to clinical trial protocols or could influence a clinical trial protocol design from a pathology perspective and (4) were published in 1996 or later. The quality of individual papers was assessed using the AGREE‐GRS (Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch & Evaluation – Global Rating Scale) tool, and the confidence in cumulative evidence was evaluated using the GRADE‐CERQual (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation–Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach. Extracted recommendations were synthesised using the best fit framework method, which includes thematic analysis followed by a meta‐aggregative approach to synthesis within the framework. Of the 10 184 records screened and 199 full‐text articles reviewed, only 40 guidance resources met the eligibility criteria for inclusion. Recommendations extracted from 22 guidance documents were generalisable enough for data synthesis. Seven recommendation statements were synthesised as follows: (1) multidisciplinary collaboration in trial design with early involvement of pathologists, particularly with respect to the use of biospecimens and associated biomarker/analytical assays and in the evaluation of pathology‐related parameters; (2) funding and training for personnel undertaking trial work; (3) selection of an accredited laboratory with suitable facilities to undertake scheduled work; (4) quality assurance of pathology‐related parameters; (5) transparent reporting of pathology‐related parameters; (6) policies regarding informatics and tracking biospecimens across trial sites; and (7) informed consent for specimen collection and retention for future research. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2021-02-26 /pmc/articles/PMC8073003/ /pubmed/33635586 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cjp2.199 Text en © 2021 The Authors. The Journal of Pathology: Clinical Research published by The Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland & John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Review
Lim, Shujing Jane
Gurusamy, Kurinchi
O'Connor, Daniel
Shaaban, Abeer M
Brierley, Daniel
Lewis, Ian
Harrison, David
Kendall, Timothy James
Robinson, Max
Recommendations for cellular and molecular pathology input into clinical trials: a systematic review and meta‐aggregation
title Recommendations for cellular and molecular pathology input into clinical trials: a systematic review and meta‐aggregation
title_full Recommendations for cellular and molecular pathology input into clinical trials: a systematic review and meta‐aggregation
title_fullStr Recommendations for cellular and molecular pathology input into clinical trials: a systematic review and meta‐aggregation
title_full_unstemmed Recommendations for cellular and molecular pathology input into clinical trials: a systematic review and meta‐aggregation
title_short Recommendations for cellular and molecular pathology input into clinical trials: a systematic review and meta‐aggregation
title_sort recommendations for cellular and molecular pathology input into clinical trials: a systematic review and meta‐aggregation
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8073003/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33635586
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cjp2.199
work_keys_str_mv AT limshujingjane recommendationsforcellularandmolecularpathologyinputintoclinicaltrialsasystematicreviewandmetaaggregation
AT gurusamykurinchi recommendationsforcellularandmolecularpathologyinputintoclinicaltrialsasystematicreviewandmetaaggregation
AT oconnordaniel recommendationsforcellularandmolecularpathologyinputintoclinicaltrialsasystematicreviewandmetaaggregation
AT shaabanabeerm recommendationsforcellularandmolecularpathologyinputintoclinicaltrialsasystematicreviewandmetaaggregation
AT brierleydaniel recommendationsforcellularandmolecularpathologyinputintoclinicaltrialsasystematicreviewandmetaaggregation
AT lewisian recommendationsforcellularandmolecularpathologyinputintoclinicaltrialsasystematicreviewandmetaaggregation
AT harrisondavid recommendationsforcellularandmolecularpathologyinputintoclinicaltrialsasystematicreviewandmetaaggregation
AT kendalltimothyjames recommendationsforcellularandmolecularpathologyinputintoclinicaltrialsasystematicreviewandmetaaggregation
AT robinsonmax recommendationsforcellularandmolecularpathologyinputintoclinicaltrialsasystematicreviewandmetaaggregation