24
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Eligibility determination for clinical trials: development of a case review process at a chiropractic research center

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Systematic procedures addressing the limitations of eligibility determination are needed to improve the quality of participant recruitment and enrollment in randomized clinical trials. This paper describes an eligibility determination process developed by and in use at a chiropractic research center engaged in community recruitment for clinical trials studying spinal pain conditions.

          Methods

          A team of investigators developed a case review process for application across clinical trials involving chiropractic care. Study personnel representing key study roles including research clinicians, study coordinators, a project manager, and at least one investigator convene in person to determine eligibility for participants following baseline study visit examinations. The research clinician who performed the eligibility examination presents the case and a moderator leads the case review panel through a structured discussion including diagnosis, eligibility criteria, definition review, and clinical precautions. Panel members provide clinical recommendations and determine final eligibility using a structured and moderated voting process.

          Results

          Through the case review process for three externally funded clinical trials for participants with neck and low back pain, we presented 697 cases, rendering 472 participants eligible for enrollment and excluding 225 individuals. The most common reasons for case review exclusions across the three trials included neck or back pain not meeting diagnostic classifications, safety concerns related to treatment or testing, referral for further evaluation or treatment, and compliance concerns.

          Conclusions

          The case review process uses the expertise of study coordinators, research clinicians, project managers, and investigators to render eligibility decisions consistent with study aims for the duration of the trial. This formal eligibility determination process includes steps designed to mitigate the potential for participant misclassification from clinician advocacy or misunderstanding of eligibility criteria, and helps ensure that participants can safely take part in study procedures.

          Trial registration

          The three trials discussed in this article were registered in ClinicalTrials.gov with the ID numbers of NCT00830596 (27 January 2009), NCT01312233 (04 March 2011), and NCT01765751 (30 May 2012).

          Related collections

          Most cited references33

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Eligibility criteria of randomized controlled trials published in high-impact general medical journals: a systematic sampling review.

          Selective eligibility criteria of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are vital to trial feasibility and internal validity. However, the exclusion of certain patient populations may lead to impaired generalizability of results. To determine the nature and extent of exclusion criteria among RCTs published in major medical journals and the contribution of exclusion criteria to the representation of certain patient populations. The MEDLINE database was searched for RCTs published between 1994 and 2006 in certain general medical journals with a high impact factor. Of 4827 articles, 283 were selected using a series technique. Trial characteristics and the details regarding exclusions were extracted independently. All exclusion criteria were graded independently and in duplicate as either strongly justified, potentially justified, or poorly justified according to previously developed and pilot-tested guidelines. Common medical conditions formed the basis for exclusion in 81.3% of trials. Patients were excluded due to age in 72.1% of all trials (60.1% in pediatric populations and 38.5% in older adults). Individuals receiving commonly prescribed medications were excluded in 54.1% of trials. Conditions related to female sex were grounds for exclusion in 39.2% of trials. Of all exclusion criteria, only 47.2% were graded as strongly justified in the context of the specific RCT. Exclusion criteria were not reported in 12.0% of trials. Multivariable analyses revealed independent associations between the total number of exclusion criteria and drug intervention trials (risk ratio, 1.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-1.65; P = .003) and between the total number of exclusion criteria and multicenter trials (risk ratio, 1.26; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.52; P = .009). Industry-sponsored trials were more likely to exclude individuals due to concomitant medication use, medical comorbidities, and age. Drug intervention trials were more likely to exclude individuals due to concomitant medication use, medical comorbidities, female sex, and socioeconomic status. Among such trials, justification for exclusions related to concomitant medication use and comorbidities were more likely to be poorly justified. The RCTs published in major medical journals do not always clearly report exclusion criteria. Women, children, the elderly, and those with common medical conditions are frequently excluded from RCTs. Trials with multiple centers and those involving drug interventions are most likely to have extensive exclusions. Such exclusions may impair the generalizability of RCT results. These findings highlight a need for careful consideration and transparent reporting and justification of exclusion criteria in clinical trials.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A comprehensive review of the psychometric properties of the Drug Abuse Screening Test.

            This article reviews the reliability and the validity of the (10-, 20-, and 28-item) Drug Abuse Screening Test (DAST). The reliability and the validity of the adolescent version of the DAST are also reviewed. An extensive literature review was conducted using the Medline and Psychinfo databases from the years 1982 to 2005. All articles that addressed the reliability and the validity of the DAST were examined. Publications in which the DAST was used as a screening tool but had no data on its psychometric properties were not included. Descriptive information about each version of the test, as well as discussion of the empirical literature that has explored measures of the reliability and the validity of the DAST, has been included. The DAST tended to have moderate to high levels of test-retest, interitem, and item-total reliabilities. The DAST also tended to have moderate to high levels of validity, sensitivity, and specificity. In general, all versions of the DAST yield satisfactory measures of reliability and validity for use as clinical or research tools. Furthermore, these tests are easy to administer and have been used in a variety of populations.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Clinical practice. Lumbar spinal stenosis.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                robert.vining@palmer.edu
                stacie.salsbury@palmer.edu
                pohlman@ualberta.ca
                Journal
                Trials
                Trials
                Trials
                BioMed Central (London )
                1745-6215
                24 October 2014
                24 October 2014
                2014
                : 15
                : 1
                : 406
                Affiliations
                [ ]Palmer College of Chiropractic, Palmer Center for Chiropractic Research, 741 Brady St., Davenport, IA 52803 USA
                [ ]Department of Pediatrics Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, 8B19 Edmonton General Hospital, University of Alberta – CARE Program, 11111 Jasper Avenue, Edmonton, AB T5K 0 L4 Canada
                Article
                2274
                10.1186/1745-6215-15-406
                4221721
                25344427
                bafd5b3a-0c01-4c6e-bcc5-c34de024c9f4
                © Vining et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014

                This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 4 March 2014
                : 8 October 2014
                Categories
                Methodology
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2014

                Medicine
                chiropractic,complementary and alternative medicine,clinical trials,diagnosis,eligibility determination,low back pain,mechanical,neck pain,patient recruitment,patient safety,patient selection,randomized

                Comments

                Comment on this article