No abstract

Abstract.Using the best quality of clinical research evidence is essential for choosing the right treatment for patients. How to identify the best research evidence is, however, difficult. In this narrative review we summarise these threats and describe how to minimise them. Pertinent literature was considered through literature searches combined with personal files. Treatments should generally not be chosen based only on evidence from observational studies or single randomised clinical trials. Systematic reviews with meta-analysis of all identifiable randomised clinical trials with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) assessment represent the highest level of evidence. Even though systematic reviews are trust worthier than other types of evidence, all levels of the evidence hierarchy are under threats from systematic errors (bias); design errors (abuse of surrogate outcomes, composite outcomes, etc.); and random errors (play of chance). Clinical research infrastructures may help in providing larger and better conducted trials. Trial Sequential Analysis may help in deciding when there is sufficient evidence in meta-analyses. If threats to the validity of clinical research are carefully considered and minimised, research results will be more valid and this will benefit patients and heath care systems. Sažetak. Primjena najkvalitetnijih dokaza kliničkih istraživanja ključna je u odabiru ispravnog liječenja pacijenata. No, način na koji će se odabrati najbolji dokazi predstavlja često poteškoću. Ovim preglednim člankom prikazujemo opasnosti navedenog odabira, kao i načine kako ih umanjiti. Relevantni izvori razmatrani su pretragom literature u kombinaciji s osobnim datotekama. Izbor liječenja uglavnom se ne bi smio temeljiti isključivo na opservacijskim ili pojedinačnim randomiziranim kliničkim studijama. Sustavni pregledi s metaanalizom svih identificiranih randomiziranih kliničkih studija procijenjenih sustavom stupnjevanja procjene, razvoja i evalua cije preporuka (engl. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation; GRADE) predstavljaju najvišu razinu dokaza. Iako su sustavni pregledi pouzdaniji od drugih vrsta dokaza, sve razine hijerarhije dokaza ugrožene su sustavnim pogreškama (engl. bias); pogreškama dizajna studije (zloupotreba surogatnih ishoda, složenih ishoda itd.) i slučajnim pogreškama (igra slučaja). Kliničke istraživačke infrastrukture mogu pomoći u pružanju većih i adekvatnije provedenih ispitivanja. Sekvencijska analiza studija može pomoći pri odlučivanju kada postoji dovoljna razina dokaza u metaanalizama. Ako se prijetnje valjanosti kliničkih istraživanja pažljivo razmatraju i minimiziraju, rezultati istraživanja bit će vrjedniji i korisniji pacientima i zdravstvenim sustavima.Ključne riječi: klinička praksa temeljena na dokazima; medicina temeljena na dokazima; meta-analiza; randomizirana klinička studija; sekvencijska analiza studija; sustavni pregled

BackgroundRandomised clinical trials are key to advancing medical knowledge and to enhancing patient care, but major barriers to their conduct exist. The present paper presents some of these barriers.MethodsWe performed systematic literature searches and internal European Clinical Research Infrastructure Network (ECRIN) communications during face-to-face meetings and telephone conferences from 2013 to 2017 within the context of the ECRIN Integrating Activity (ECRIN-IA) project.ResultsThe following barriers to randomised clinical trials were identified: inadequate knowledge of clinical research and trial methodology; lack of funding; excessive monitoring; restrictive privacy law and lack of transparency; complex regulatory requirements; and inadequate infrastructures. There is a need for more pragmatic randomised clinical trials conducted with low risks of systematic and random errors, and multinational cooperation is essential.ConclusionsThe present paper presents major barriers to randomised clinical trials. It also underlines the value of using a pan-European-distributed infrastructure to help investigators overcome barriers for multi-country trials in any disease area.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-2099-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Showing how engagement adds value for all stakeholders can be an effective motivator for broader implementation of patient engagement. However, it is unclear what methods can best be used to evaluate patient engagement. This paper is focused on ways to evaluate patient engagement at three decision‐making points in the medicines research and development process: research priority setting, clinical trial design and early dialogues with regulators and health technology assessment bodies. Objective Our aim was to review the literature on monitoring and evaluation of patient engagement, with a focus on indicators and methods. Search strategy and inclusion criteria We undertook a scoping literature review using a systematic search, including academic and grey literature with a focus on evaluation approaches or outcomes associated with patient engagement. No date limits were applied other than a cut‐off of publications after July 2018. Data extraction and synthesis Data were extracted from 91 publications, coded and thematically analysed. Main results A total of 18 benefits and 5 costs of patient engagement were identified, mapped with 28 possible indicators for their evaluation. Several quantitative and qualitative methods were found for the evaluation of benefits and costs of patient engagement. Discussion and conclusions Currently available indicators and methods are of some use in measuring impact but are not sufficient to understand the pathway to impact, nor whether interaction between researchers and patients leads to change. We suggest that the impacts of patient engagement can best be determined not by applying single indicators, but a coherent set of measures.