GLORIA

GEOMAR Library Ocean Research Information Access

Your email was sent successfully. Check your inbox.

An error occurred while sending the email. Please try again.

Proceed reservation?

Export
  • 1
    In: BMJ Open, BMJ, Vol. 10, No. 5 ( 2020-05), p. e038887-
    Abstract: To explore the implementation of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) data-sharing policy which came into force on 1 July 2018 by ICMJE-member journals and by ICMJE-affiliated journals declaring they follow the ICMJE recommendations. Design A cross-sectional survey of data-sharing policies in 2018 on journal websites and in data-sharing statements in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Setting ICMJE website; PubMed/Medline. Eligibility criteria ICMJE-member journals and 489 ICMJE-affiliated journals that published an RCT in 2018, had an accessible online website and were not considered as predatory journals according to Beall’s list. One hundred RCTs for member journals and 100 RCTs for affiliated journals with a data-sharing policy, submitted after 1 July 2018. Main outcome measures The primary outcome for the policies was the existence of a data-sharing policy (explicit data-sharing policy, no data-sharing policy, policy merely referring to ICMJE recommendations) as reported on the journal website, especially in the instructions for authors. For RCTs, our primary outcome was the intention to share individual participant data set out in the data-sharing statement. Results Eight (out of 14; 57%) member journals had an explicit data-sharing policy on their website (three were more stringent than the ICMJE requirements, one was less demanding and four were compliant), five (35%) additional journals stated that they followed the ICMJE requirements, and one (8%) had no policy online. In RCTs published in these journals, there were data-sharing statements in 98 out of 100, with expressed intention to share individual patient data reaching 77 out of 100 (77%; 95% CI 67% to 85%). One hundred and forty-five (out of 489) ICMJE-affiliated journals (30%; 26% to 34%) had an explicit data-sharing policy on their website (11 were more stringent than the ICMJE requirements, 85 were less demanding and 49 were compliant) and 276 (56%; 52% to 61%) merely referred to the ICMJE requirements. In RCTs published in affiliated journals with an explicit data-sharing policy, data-sharing statements were rare (25%), and expressed intentions to share data were found in 22% (15% to 32%). Conclusion The implementation of ICMJE data-sharing requirements in online journal policies was suboptimal for ICMJE-member journals and poor for ICMJE-affiliated journals. The implementation of the policy was good in member journals and of concern for affiliated journals. We suggest the conduct of continuous audits of medical journal data-sharing policies in the future. Registration The protocol was registered before the start of the research on the Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/n6whd/ ).
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 2044-6055 , 2044-6055
    Language: English
    Publisher: BMJ
    Publication Date: 2020
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2599832-8
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 2
    In: PeerJ, PeerJ, Vol. 11 ( 2023-10-02), p. e16016-
    Abstract: To explore differences between published reviews and their respective protocols in a sample of 97 non-Cochrane Systematic Reviews (non-CSRs) and 97 Cochrane Systematic Reviews (CSRs) in terms of PICOS (Patients/Population, Intervention, Comparison/Control, Outcome, Study type) elements and the extent to which they were reported. Study Design and Setting We searched PubMed and Cochrane databases to identify non-CSRs and CSRs that were published in 2018. We then searched for their corresponding Cochrane or PROSPERO protocols. The published reviews were compared to their protocols. The primary outcome was changes from protocol to review in terms of PICOS elements. Results We identified a total of 227 changes from protocol to review in PICOS elements, 1.11 (Standard Deviation (SD), 1.22) changes per review for CSRs and 1.23 (SD, 1.12) for non-CSRs per review. More than half of each sub-sample (54.6% of CSRs and 67.0% of non-CSRs) (Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR) 12.4% [−1.3%; 26.0%]) had changes in PICOS elements. For both subsamples, approximately a third of all changes corresponded to changes related to primary outcomes. Marked differences were found between the sub-samples for the reporting of changes. 95.8% of the changes in PICOS items were not reported in the non-CSRs compared to 42.6% in the CSRs (ARR 53.2% [43.2%; 63.2%] ). Conclusion CSRs showed better results than non-CSRs in terms of the reporting of changes. Reporting of changes from protocol needs to be promoted and requires general improvement. The limitations of this study lie in its observational design. Registration: https://osf.io/6j8gd/ .
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 2167-8359
    Language: English
    Publisher: PeerJ
    Publication Date: 2023
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2703241-3
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 3
    In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Elsevier BV, Vol. 137 ( 2021-09), p. 241-249
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0895-4356
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: Elsevier BV
    Publication Date: 2021
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 1500490-9
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 4
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    Elsevier BV ; 2022
    In:  Therapies Vol. 77, No. 2 ( 2022-03), p. 207-217
    In: Therapies, Elsevier BV, Vol. 77, No. 2 ( 2022-03), p. 207-217
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0040-5957
    Language: English
    Publisher: Elsevier BV
    Publication Date: 2022
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 5
    In: International Journal of Cancer, Wiley, Vol. 152, No. 12 ( 2023-06-15), p. 2474-2484
    Abstract: Concerns have been raised that regulatory programs to accelerate approval of cancer drugs in cancer may increase uncertainty about benefits and harms for survival and quality of life (QoL). We analyzed all pivotal clinical trials and all non‐pivotal randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for all cancer drugs approved for the first time by the FDA between 2000 and 2020. We report regulatory and trial characteristics. Effects on overall survival (OS), progression‐free survival and tumor response were summarized in meta‐analyses. Effects on QoL were qualitatively summarized. Between 2000 and 2020, the FDA approved 145 novel cancer drugs for 156 indications based on 190 clinical trials. Half of indications (49%) were approved without RCT evidence; 82% had a single clinical trial only. OS was primary endpoint in 14% of trials and QoL data were available from 25%. The median OS benefit was 2.55 months (IQR, 1.33‐4.28) with a mean hazard ratio for OS of 0.75 (95%CI, 0.72‐0.79, I 2  = 42). Improvement for QoL was reported for 7 (4%) of 156 indications. Over time, priority review was used increasingly and the mean number of trials per indication decreased from 1.45 to 1.12. More trials reported results on QoL (19% in 2000‐2005; 41% in 2016‐2020). For 21 years, novel cancer drugs have typically been approved based on one single, often uncontrolled, clinical trial, measuring surrogate endpoints. This leaves cancer patients without solid evidence that novel drugs improve their survival or QoL and there is no indication towards improvement.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0020-7136 , 1097-0215
    URL: Issue
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: Wiley
    Publication Date: 2023
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 218257-9
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 1474822-8
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 6
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    Elsevier BV ; 2022
    In:  Journal of Clinical Epidemiology Vol. 149 ( 2022-09), p. 183-189
    In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Elsevier BV, Vol. 149 ( 2022-09), p. 183-189
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0895-4356
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: Elsevier BV
    Publication Date: 2022
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 1500490-9
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 7
    In: BMC Cancer, Springer Science and Business Media LLC, Vol. 22, No. 1 ( 2022-12)
    Abstract: Tivozanib (Fotivda) is an anti-angiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitor that was denied access to the US market by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In contrast, it was granted approval by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for the treatment of Renal Cell Carcinoma in adults. Given the conflicting decisions from these regulatory agencies, the objectives of the following study are (i) to critically review the evidence supporting the approval of tivozanib; (ii) to analyse the dissemination of this evidence in the literature by way of a citation analysis. Methods Pivotal trials were searched by two independent reviewers using Medline, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov and the European Public Assessment Report. The risk of bias for each trial was then inductively assessed. Articles citing any of these trials were identified using Web of Sciences. Finally, the quality of the citations was evaluated by two independent reviewers according to standard data extraction methods. Results The search for primary evidence identified two pivotal studies: TIVO-1 upon which the FDA and the EMA decisions were based, and TIVO-3 which was conducted after the agencies’ decisions had been issued. The TIVO-1 trial presented several limitations that compromised causal inference, in relation to (i) design (absence of blinding, inappropriate comparator, and one-way crossover), (ii) poor internal consistency in the results for the primary endpoint, (iii) a discrepancy between a benefit observed for progression-free survival (HR: 0.80, 95% CI [0.64–0.99]) and the absence of difference for overall survival (HR: 1.25, 95% CI [0.95 – 1.62] ). Our citation search protocol identified 229 articles that cited TIVO-1 in the 7 years following its publication, among which 151 (65.9%) citing articles discussing efficacy. Presence of spin was identified in 64 (42.4%) of these 151 citing articles, and 39 (25.8%) additional articles citing results without providing enough elements to interpret the TIVO-1 results. Conclusion EMA’s approval was based on a single pivotal trial presenting critical limitations, rendering the results from the trial potentially inconclusive. The broad dissemination of TIVO-1 results in the scientific literature may have been affected by spin or results were presented in an inadequate critical manner.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 1471-2407
    Language: English
    Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
    Publication Date: 2022
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2041352-X
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
Close ⊗
This website uses cookies and the analysis tool Matomo. More information can be found here...