MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4327510311 · doi:10.1136/ebm-2022-ebmlive.43

148 Reporting clinical trial findings as an ethical responsibility to research participants: a qualitative interview study

2022· article· en· W4327510311 on OpenAlexaffabout
Richard A. Morrow, Barbara Mintzes, Garry Gray, Michael R. Law, Scott Garrison, Colin R. Dormuth

Bibliographic record

VenueAbstracts · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClinical trialResearch ethicsQualitative researchClinical researchInformed consentRandomized controlled trialInstitutional review boardFamily medicinePsychologyGrounded theoryResearch designAlternative medicineMedicineMedical educationPsychiatrySociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives Approximately 40% of randomized controlled trials are not published. Advocates of full reporting of clinical trials have argued nonpublication betrays trial participants and violates an implicit contract between participants and researchers. However, trial participant views on the importance of reporting research findings and trial investigator views on the responsibility to report findings are unclear. We conducted a qualitative interview study to understand how the experiences and views of trial participants, trial investigators, and others relate to whether researchers have a duty to trial participants to report research findings. Method We conducted qualitative semi-structured interviews between March 2019 and April 2021 with participants in the Canadian provinces of Alberta, British Columbia, and Ontario. Participants eligible for an interview included clinical trial participants who had taken part in a trial while at least 18 years of age in the 5 years prior to the interview, clinical trial investigators and research coordinators with experience in drug research, research administrators with knowledge of policy and practice related to dissemination of clinical trial findings or relations with trial sponsors, and research ethics board members with at least 1 year of experience in ethics review of clinical trials. The study included 34 participants, including 10 clinical trial participants, 17 clinical trial investigators, 1 clinical research coordinator, 3 research administrators, and 3 research ethics board members. Analytic strategies were informed by grounded theory, including initial coding, focused coding, and memo-writing to develop key themes. Results Most clinical trial participants felt that reporting clinical trial results is important. Accounts of trial participants suggested their contributions are part of a reciprocal relationship involving the expectation that research will advance medical knowledge. One trial participant asked: “If we’re doing the work, spending the dollars and not using that information to further medical science, then what was the point of doing all that work in the first place?” Similarly, comments from trial investigators suggested that reporting trial results is part of reciprocity with trial participants and is a necessary part of honouring informed consent. Accounts of trial investigators suggested that when drug trials are not reported, this may undermine informed consent in subsequent trials by withholding information on harms or efficacy relevant to informed decisions on whether to conduct or enroll in future trials of similar drugs. Conclusions The views of trial participants, trial investigators, and others connected to clinical trial research in Canada suggested that researchers have an obligation to participants to report clinical trial results and that reporting results is necessary for honouring informed consent. Trial participants may consent to enter a trial with the understanding that research will benefit future patients. However, this consent is not respected when trial results are not reported and this potential benefit is not fulfilled. Research ethics boards could help ensure clinical trials are reported by auditing whether trials they have approved have been reported or by assisting research institutions to monitor and support reporting of clinical trials.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.070
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.079
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score0.371

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0700.079
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0160.024
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0030.009
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.949
GPT teacher head0.799
Teacher spread0.150 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
DomainReporting
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAbstractsSame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207