gms | German Medical Science

Klasse statt Masse – wider die wertlose Wissenschaft: 18. Jahrestagung des Deutschen Netzwerks Evidenzbasierte Medizin

Deutsches Netzwerk Evidenzbasierte Medizin e. V.

09.03. - 11.03.2017, Hamburg

The quality of clinical research is often discussed but rarely defined – a systematic survey and proposal for a comprehensive framework of clinical research quality

Meeting Abstract

  • corresponding author presenting/speaker Belinda von Niederhäusern - Clinical Trial Unit, Department of Clinical Research, University and University Hospital Basel, Basel, Schweiz
  • author Lars G. Hemkens - Basel Institute for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Department of Clinical Research, University and University Hospital Basel, Basel, Schweiz
  • author Marie Mi Bonde - Clinical Trial Unit, Department of Clinical Research, University and University Hospital Basel, Basel, Schweiz
  • author Nicole Brunner - Clinical Trial Unit, Department of Clinical Research, University and University Hospital Basel, Basel, Schweiz
  • author Marielle Rutquist - Clinical Trial Unit, Department of Clinical Research, University and University Hospital Basel, Basel, Schweiz
  • author Gordon H. Guyatt - Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Kanada
  • author Matthias Briel - Basel Institute for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Department of Clinical Research, University and University Hospital Basel, Basel, Schweiz
  • author Christiane Pauli-Magnus - Clinical Trial Unit, Department of Clinical Research, University and University Hospital Basel, Basel, Schweiz

Klasse statt Masse – wider die wertlose Wissenschaft. 18. Jahrestagung des Deutschen Netzwerks Evidenzbasierte Medizin. Hamburg, 09.-11.03.2017. Düsseldorf: German Medical Science GMS Publishing House; 2017. Doc17ebmV11

doi: 10.3205/17ebm001, urn:nbn:de:0183-17ebm0019

Veröffentlicht: 23. Februar 2017

© 2017 von Niederhäusern et al.
Dieser Artikel ist ein Open-Access-Artikel und steht unter den Lizenzbedingungen der Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (Namensnennung). Lizenz-Angaben siehe http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.


Gliederung

Text

Background: While the quality of clinical research is often criticized, there is no underlying consensus on a definition of the term “quality” yet.

Objectives: (1) To systematically survey definitions of quality in clinical research; and (2) to develop a conceptual framework of criteria allowing for the comprehensive assessment of clinical research quality.

Methods: We systematically and in duplicate searched definitions and concepts of clinical research quality on websites of stakeholders in clinical research until no further insights emerged and in MEDLINE up to February 2015. Stakeholders included governmental bodies, regulatory agencies, the pharmaceutical industry, academic research initiatives, contract research organizations, ethics committees, patient organizations and funding agencies from 12 countries. Based on the qualitative framework analysis, we systematically developed a concept for a comprehensive framework for clinical research quality. The framework was circulated among 8 stakeholder groups from 12 countries until consensus on structure and content was reached.

Results: In our systematic survey we found that stakeholder concepts on how to assure quality throughout study conduct or articles on quality assessment tools were common, generally with no a priori definition of the term quality itself. We did not find one definition or concept comprehensively considering a range of quality dimensions, different phases or types of clinical research, and stakeholder perspectives. Our proposed framework therefore synthesizes criteria that were identified from different stakeholder groups and study settings, and spans all phases of clinical research. It includes the following dimensions: (1) ethical conduct and protection of participants’ safety and rights, (2) internal validity, (3) precision, (4) external validity, (5) relevance, and (6) transparency/public access to data. These dimensions are embedded in and interacting with an environment that a) consists of an established infrastructure including well-trained personnel and functional facilities, and b) uses ongoing clinical research efficiently for training purposes in order to ensure sustainability of an effective infrastructure.

Conclusions: The quality of clinical research is often discussed, but remains rarely defined. We propose a comprehensive framework of criteria which may be used as the basis to develop measurement tools of clinical research quality for various settings