Literature DB >> 21039767

Methodological characteristics of academic clinical drug trials--a retrospective cohort study of applications to the Danish Medicines Agency 1993-2005.

Louise Berendt1, Cecilia Håkansson, Karin F Bach, Per B Andreasen, Lene G Petersen, Elin Andersen, Henrik E Poulsen, Kim Dalhoff.   

Abstract

AIM: The aim of this study was to investigate the temporal trends in characteristics of academic clinical drug trials. We here report characteristics on trial methodology.
METHODS: A review of 386 approved applications of academic clinical drug trials submitted to the Danish Medicines Agency 1993-2005 was carried out. Data on 11 methodological characteristics were collected, e.g. statement of primary endpoint, use of control group, blinding, randomization, method for generation of allocation sequence, monitoring according to the principles of Good Clinical Practice (GCP monitoring) and publication.
RESULTS: Statement of primary endpoint increased from 60 to 90% of trials (P < 0.0001). Comparing the period before and after implementation of the Clinical Trials Directive in 2004, intention of GCP monitoring increased from 13% to 94%. Control of medicine compliance increased from 42% to 76% (P < 0.0001) among trials with self-administration of the investigational medicinal product. Among controlled trials use of randomization increased from 78% to 94% (P= 0.0063) of trials. Remaining characteristics did not change significantly. In total 68% (264/386) were randomized controlled trials.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that randomization, definition of primary endpoint, GCP monitoring, and control of medicine compliance form part of a significantly increasing percentage of academic clinical drug trials. This indicates an increase in the quality of academic clinical drug research in Denmark 1993-2005. However, high numbers of unblinded randomized controlled trials and randomized controlled trials utilizing unacceptable methods for generation of allocation sequence emphasize the potential for further improvement of trial methodology.
© 2010 Danish Medicines Agency. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology © 2010 The British Pharmacological Society.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21039767      PMCID: PMC2997313          DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2010.03755.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol        ISSN: 0306-5251            Impact factor:   4.335


  13 in total

1.  The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis.

Authors:  P Jüni; A Witschi; R Bloch; M Egger
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1999-09-15       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 2.  Statistics notes. Treatment allocation in controlled trials: why randomise?

Authors:  D G Altman; J M Bland
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-05-01

3.  Role of a research ethics committee in follow-up and publication of results.

Authors:  Judit Pich; Xavier Carné; Joan-Albert Arnaiz; Begoña Gómez; Antoni Trilla; Juan Rodés
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2003-03-22       Impact factor: 79.321

4.  Bad reporting does not mean bad methods for randomised trials: observational study of randomised controlled trials performed by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group.

Authors:  Heloisa P Soares; Stephanie Daniels; Ambuj Kumar; Mike Clarke; Charles Scott; Suzanne Swann; Benjamin Djulbegovic
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-01-03

5.  Fate of biomedical research protocols and publication bias in France: retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Evelyne Decullier; Véronique Lhéritier; François Chapuis
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2005-06-20

6.  Is the randomized controlled drug trial in Europe lagging behind the USA?

Authors:  Hiddo J Lambers Heerspink; Mirjam J Knol; Robert J W Tijssen; Thed N van Leeuwen; Diederick E Grobbee; Dick de Zeeuw
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 4.335

7.  Randomisation.

Authors:  D G Altman
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1991-06-22

8.  Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists.

Authors:  D Moher; A R Jadad; G Nichol; M Penman; P Tugwell; S Walsh
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  1995-02

9.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data.

Authors:  J R Landis; G G Koch
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1977-03       Impact factor: 2.571

10.  Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials.

Authors:  K F Schulz; I Chalmers; R J Hayes; D G Altman
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1995-02-01       Impact factor: 56.272

View more
  3 in total

1.  Editors' pick 2010.

Authors:  Yoon K Loke; Albert Ferro; Lionel D Lewis; Adam F Cohen; Andrew Somogyi; James M Ritter
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 4.335

2.  From protocol to published report: a study of consistency in the reporting of academic drug trials.

Authors:  Louise Berendt; Torbjörn Callréus; Lene Grejs Petersen; Karin Friis Bach; Henrik Enghusen Poulsen; Kim Dalhoff
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2016-02-19       Impact factor: 2.279

3.  Barriers towards the publication of academic drug trials. Follow-up of trials approved by the Danish Medicines Agency.

Authors:  Louise Berendt; Lene Grejs Petersen; Karin Friis Bach; Henrik Enghusen Poulsen; Kim Dalhoff
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-05-09       Impact factor: 3.240

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.