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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |
_version_ | 1784710522696892416 |
---|---|
author | Gloy, Viktoria Speich, Benjamin Griessbach, Alexandra Taji Heravi, Ala Schulz, Alexandra Fabbro, Thomas Magnus, Christiane Pauli McLennan, Stuart Bertram, Wendy Briel, Matthias |
author_facet | Gloy, Viktoria Speich, Benjamin Griessbach, Alexandra Taji Heravi, Ala Schulz, Alexandra Fabbro, Thomas Magnus, Christiane Pauli McLennan, Stuart Bertram, Wendy Briel, Matthias |
author_sort | Gloy, Viktoria |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9118562 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-91185622022-05-20 Scoping review and characteristics of publicly available checklists for assessing clinical trial feasibility Gloy, Viktoria Speich, Benjamin Griessbach, Alexandra Taji Heravi, Ala Schulz, Alexandra Fabbro, Thomas Magnus, Christiane Pauli McLennan, Stuart Bertram, Wendy Briel, Matthias BMC Med Res Methodol Research 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. BioMed Central 2022-05-19 /pmc/articles/PMC9118562/ /pubmed/35590285 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01617-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Gloy, Viktoria Speich, Benjamin Griessbach, Alexandra Taji Heravi, Ala Schulz, Alexandra Fabbro, Thomas Magnus, Christiane Pauli McLennan, Stuart Bertram, Wendy Briel, Matthias Scoping review and characteristics of publicly available checklists for assessing clinical trial feasibility |
title | Scoping review and characteristics of publicly available checklists for assessing clinical trial feasibility |
title_full | Scoping review and characteristics of publicly available checklists for assessing clinical trial feasibility |
title_fullStr | Scoping review and characteristics of publicly available checklists for assessing clinical trial feasibility |
title_full_unstemmed | Scoping review and characteristics of publicly available checklists for assessing clinical trial feasibility |
title_short | Scoping review and characteristics of publicly available checklists for assessing clinical trial feasibility |
title_sort | scoping review and characteristics of publicly available checklists for assessing clinical trial feasibility |
topic | Research |
url | 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 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT gloyviktoria scopingreviewandcharacteristicsofpubliclyavailablechecklistsforassessingclinicaltrialfeasibility AT speichbenjamin scopingreviewandcharacteristicsofpubliclyavailablechecklistsforassessingclinicaltrialfeasibility AT griessbachalexandra scopingreviewandcharacteristicsofpubliclyavailablechecklistsforassessingclinicaltrialfeasibility AT tajiheraviala scopingreviewandcharacteristicsofpubliclyavailablechecklistsforassessingclinicaltrialfeasibility AT schulzalexandra scopingreviewandcharacteristicsofpubliclyavailablechecklistsforassessingclinicaltrialfeasibility AT fabbrothomas scopingreviewandcharacteristicsofpubliclyavailablechecklistsforassessingclinicaltrialfeasibility AT magnuschristianepauli scopingreviewandcharacteristicsofpubliclyavailablechecklistsforassessingclinicaltrialfeasibility AT mclennanstuart scopingreviewandcharacteristicsofpubliclyavailablechecklistsforassessingclinicaltrialfeasibility AT bertramwendy scopingreviewandcharacteristicsofpubliclyavailablechecklistsforassessingclinicaltrialfeasibility AT brielmatthias scopingreviewandcharacteristicsofpubliclyavailablechecklistsforassessingclinicaltrialfeasibility |