The clinical trial industry has encountered challenging circumstances in which the increasing number of trials outpaces the number of trial specialists. For instance, there has been an unprecedented demand for clinical trials following the Covid-19 pandemic, which has worsened the global shortage of qualified personnel. It is therefore imperative to produce more qualified clinical trial professionals. An adaptive and collaborative training model was implemented by the National Center for Global Health and Medicine through the Department of International Trials. This aimed at building capacity among health workers in developing countries and providing them with the skills to be able to conduct all phases of the clinical trial from protocol design to publication of results. It also seeks to foster collaboration and partnership between local health workers and international experts. Since 2016, we have implemented a Japan-led training program, and since 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic has ushered in a shift from a single Train-thetrainer model (ToT) to a mixed model, the Evolving Partnership Training (ePT). In this model, we applied four different methods: train-the-trainer, needs-oriented training, open symposiums, and advanced learning. The total number of training participants increased exponentially from a total of 41 between 2016-2020 to 2,810 in 2021. Our experience has proven that despite the constraint of the pandemic, the ePT is a viable approach compared to a single method for providing quality training and increasing the number of participants.

No abstract

No abstract

Objective: We evaluated compliance of recent narrative systematic reviews with the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidance. Research design and methods: We searched EMBASE and MEDLINE databases on 21-September-2017, for English-language records with a print publication date of 01-June-2017, for "systematic review" (in the title field) and terms relating to drug therapy (in the subject field). Case studies, conference reports, letters, surveys, errata, editorials, and meta-analyses were excluded. A manual screen excluded protocols and reports providing statistical analysis. Articles were scored for fulfilment of PRISMA checklist items for the objectives, methods (information sources, search, study selection), and results (study selection, study characteristics), and whether they reference PRISMA. Results: Of the 99 abstracts identified, 46 (46.5%) were selected for analysis. Reasons for exclusion were: not drug related (n ¼ 35), statistical analysis conducted (n ¼ 10), protocol (n ¼ 7), and not in English (n ¼ 1). Twenty-seven (58.7%) publications did not fully adhere to our set of PRISMA items. More than 82% of publications appropriately reported on objectives, information sources, and study selection (methods) items, whereas 76.1% and 50.0% reported study selection (results) and search items, respectively. Publications citing PRISMA (n ¼ 28; 60.8%) tended to report on more items with the exception of search criteria. Conclusions: Just over half of these recent publications described as systematic reviews did not follow PRISMA criteria, despite referencing them. These findings suggest a need for improvement in performing systematic reviews and/or reporting how they were conducted. Such improvements may lead to greater confidence in the findings of systematic reviews.