Cargando…

Scoping review and characteristics of publicly available checklists for assessing clinical trial feasibility

BACKGROUND: Whether there is sufficient capacity and capability for the successful conduct and delivery of a clinical trial should be assessed by several stakeholders according to transparent and evidence-based criteria during trial planning. For this openly shared, user-tested, and validated tools...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gloy, Viktoria, Speich, Benjamin, Griessbach, Alexandra, Taji Heravi, Ala, Schulz, Alexandra, Fabbro, Thomas, Magnus, Christiane Pauli, McLennan, Stuart, Bertram, Wendy, Briel, Matthias
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9118562/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35590285
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01617-6
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Whether there is sufficient capacity and capability for the successful conduct and delivery of a clinical trial should be assessed by several stakeholders according to transparent and evidence-based criteria during trial planning. For this openly shared, user-tested, and validated tools are necessary. Therefore, we systematically examined the public availability and content of checklists which assess the study-level feasibility in the planning phase of clinical trials. METHODS: In our scoping review we systematically searched Medline, EMBASE, and Google (last search, June 2021). We included all publicly available checklists or tools that assessed study level feasibility of clinical trials, examined their content, and checked whether they were user-tested or validated in any form. Data was analysed and synthesised using conventional content analysis. RESULTS: A total of 10 publicly available checklists from five countries were identified. The checklists included 48 distinct items that were classified according to the following seven different domains of clinical trial feasibility: regulation, review and oversight; participant recruitment; space, material and equipment; financial resources; trial team resources; trial management; and pilot or feasibility studies. None of the available checklists appeared to be user-tested or validated. CONCLUSIONS: Although a number of publicly available checklists to assess the feasibility of clinical trials exist, their reliability and usefulness remain unclear. Openly shared, user-tested, and validated feasibility assessment tools for a better planning of clinical trials are lacking. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-022-01617-6.