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

Robert D Vining, Stacie A Salsbury, Katherine A Pohlman, Robert D Vining, Stacie A Salsbury, Katherine A Pohlman

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).

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Case review flowchart for the manual cervical distraction trial (Trial 3). Yellow boxes, case review moderator process; Light grey boxes, study coordinator process; Dark grey boxes, research clinician process; Green boxes, senior clinician process; Purple boxes, case review panel process.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Case review flowchart for the spinal manipulation and sensorimotor function trial (Trial 1). Light grey boxes, study coordinator process; Dark grey boxes, research clinician process; Green boxes, senior clinician process; Purple boxes, case review panel process.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Case review flowchart for the collaborative care trial (Trial 2). Light grey boxes, study coordinator process; Dark grey boxes, research clinician process; Green boxes, senior clinician process; Purple boxes, case review panel process.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Eligibility decisions from the multi-staged determination process for the manual cervical distraction trial (Trial 3).

References

    1. Macias WL, Vallet B, Bernard GR, Vincent JL, Laterre PF, Nelson DR, Derchak PA, Dhainaut JF. Sources of variability on the estimate of treatment effect in the PROWESS trial: implications for the design and conduct of future studies in severe sepsis. Crit Care Med. 2004;32:2385–2391. doi: 10.1097/.
    1. Kasai T, Ohe Y, Nishio K, Kunitoh H, Tamura T, Sekine I, Kubota K, Yamamoto N, Nakamura Y, Shinkai T, Kodama T, Saijo N. Factors that influence the eligibility of cases for inclusion in clinical trials. The Lung Cancer Chemotherapy Study Group of the Japan Clinical Oncology Group. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 1998;28:214–221. doi: 10.1093/jjco/28.3.214.
    1. Fink E, Kokku PK, Nikiforou S, Hall LO, Goldgof DB, Krischer JP. Selection of patients for clinical trials: an interactive web-based system. Artif Intell Med. 2004;31:241–254. doi: 10.1016/j.artmed.2004.01.017.
    1. Papaconstantinou C, Theocharous G, Mahadevan S. An expert system for assigning patients into clinical trials based on Bayesian networks. J Med Syst. 1998;22:189–202. doi: 10.1023/A:1022667800953.
    1. Simpson F, Sweetman EA, Doig GS. A systematic review of techniques and interventions for improving adherence to inclusion and exclusion criteria during enrolment into randomised controlled trials. Trials. 2010;11:17. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-11-17.
    1. Donovan JL, Paramasivan S, De Salis I, Toerien M. Clear obstacles and hidden challenges: understanding recruiter perspectives in six pragmatic randomised controlled trials. Trials. 2014;15:5. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-15-5.
    1. Umscheid CA, Margolis DJ, Grossman CE. Key concepts of clinical trials: a narrative review. Postgrad Med. 2011;123:194–204. doi: 10.3810/pgm.2011.09.2475.
    1. Department of Health and Human Services . Code of Federal Regulations Title 45 Public Welfare, Part 46 Protection Of Human Subjects. DC: Washington; 2009.
    1. Guyatt G, Rennie D, Meade MO, Cook DJ. Users’ Guides to the Medical Literature: A Manual for Evidence-Based Clinical Practice. 2. USA: The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc.; 2008.
    1. Van Spall HG, Toren A, Kiss A, Fowler RA. Eligibility criteria of randomized controlled trials published in high-impact general medical journals: a systematic sampling review. JAMA. 2007;297:1233–1240. doi: 10.1001/jama.297.11.1233.
    1. Fossa SD, Skovlund E. Selection of patients may limit the generalizability of results from cancer trials. Acta Oncol. 2002;41:131–137. doi: 10.1080/028418602753669490.
    1. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Trials. 2010;11:32. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-11-32.
    1. Farrell B, Kenyon S, Shakur H. Managing clinical trials. Trials. 2010;11:78. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-11-78.
    1. Wilder DG, Vining RD, Pohlman KA, Meeker WC, Xia T, DeVocht JW, Gudavalli MR, Long CR, Owens EF, Goertz CM. Effect of spinal manipulation on sensorimotor functions in back pain patients: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials. 2011;12:161. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-12-161.
    1. Goertz CM, Salsbury SA, Vining RD, Long CR, Andresen AA, Jones ME, Lyons KJ, Hondras MA, Killinger LZ, Wolinsky FD, Wallace RB. Collaborative Care for Older Adults with low back pain by family medicine physicians and doctors of chiropractic (COCOA): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2013;14:18. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-14-18.
    1. Hondras MA, Long CR, Haan AG, Spencer LB, Meeker WC. Recruitment and enrollment for the simultaneous conduct of 2 randomized controlled trials for patients with subacute and chronic low back pain at a CAM research center. J Altern Complement Med. 2008;14:983–992. doi: 10.1089/acm.2008.0066.
    1. Pohlman K, Carber L, Vining R, Devlin T, Rice R, Salsbury S, Corber L, Hondras M, Long C, Goertz C. Leveraging grant awards to enhance the research infrastructure at a CAM institution. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2012;12:95. doi: 10.1186/1472-6882-12-S1-P95.
    1. Bussieres AE, Taylor JA, Peterson C. Diagnostic imaging practice guidelines for musculoskeletal complaints in adults-an evidence-based approach-part 3: spinal disorders. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2008;31:33–88. doi: 10.1016/j.jmpt.2007.11.003.
    1. Vining R, Potocki E, Seidman M, Morgenthal AP. An evidence-based diagnostic classification system for low back pain. J Can Chiropr Assoc. 2013;57:189–204.
    1. Spitzer WO, LeBlanc FE, Dupuis M. Scientific approach to the assessment and management of activity-related spinal disorders. A monograph for clinicians. Report of the Quebec Task Force on Spinal Disorders. Spine. 1987;12:S1–S59. doi: 10.1097/00007632-198701000-00001.
    1. Spitzer WO, Skovron ML, Salmi LR, Cassidy JD, Duranceau J, Suissa S, Zeiss E. Scientific monograph of the Quebec Task Force on Whiplash-Associated Disorders: redefining “whiplash” and its management. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1995;20:1S–73S. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199501000-00001.
    1. Yudko E, Lozhkina O, Fouts A. A comprehensive review of the psychometric properties of the Drug Abuse Screening Test. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2007;32:189–198. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2006.08.002.
    1. Gavin DR, Ross HE, Skinner HA. Diagnostic validity of the drug abuse screening test in the assessment of DSM-III drug disorders. Br J Addict. 1989;84:301–307. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.1989.tb03463.x.
    1. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism . Helping Patients Who Drink Too Much, A Clinician’s Guide, Updated 2005. Rockville, MD: NIH; 2005.
    1. Taylor KM, Margolese RG, Soskolne CL. Physicians’ reasons for not entering eligible patients in a randomized clinical trial of surgery for breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 1984;310:1363–1367. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198405243102106.
    1. Mansour EG. Barriers to clinical trials. Part III: knowledge and attitudes of health care providers. Cancer. 1994;74:2672–2675. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19941101)74:9+<2672::AID-CNCR2820741815>;2-X.
    1. Paramasivan S, Huddart R, Hall E, Lewis R, Birtle A, Donovan JL. Key issues in recruitment to randomised controlled trials with very different interventions: a qualitative investigation of recruitment to the SPARE trial (CRUK/07/011) Trials. 2011;12:78. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-12-78.
    1. Benson AB, III, Pregler JP, Bean JA, Rademaker AW, Eshler B, Anderson K. Oncologists’ reluctance to accrue patients onto clinical trials: an Illinois Cancer Center study. J Clin Oncol. 1991;9:2067–2075.
    1. Bell-Syer SE, Thorpe LN, Thomas K, Macpherson H. GP participation and recruitment of patients to RCTs: lessons from trials of acupuncture and exercise for low back pain in primary care. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2011;2011:687349. doi: 10.1093/ecam/nen044.
    1. Tang H, Foster NR, Grothey A, Ansell SM, Goldberg RM, Sargent DJ. Comparison of error rates in single-arm versus randomized phase II cancer clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:1936–1941. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.25.5489.
    1. Waddell G. Subgroups within “nonspecific” low back pain. J Rheumatol. 2005;32:395–396.
    1. Gennari JH, Sklar D, Silva J. Proc AMIA Symp. 2001. Cross-tool communication: from protocol authoring to eligibility determination; pp. 199–203.
    1. Suri P, Rainville J, Kalichman L, Katz JN. Does this older adult with lower extremity pain have the clinical syndrome of lumbar spinal stenosis? JAMA. 2010;304:2628–2636. doi: 10.1001/jama.2010.1833.
    1. Katz JN, Harris MB. Clinical practice. Lumbar spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:818–825. doi: 10.1056/NEJMcp0708097.
    1. Williams C, Hancock M, Ferreira P, Ferreira M, Maher C. A literature review reveals that trials evaluating treatment of non-specific low back pain use inconsistent criteria to identify serious pathologies and nerve root involvement. J Man Manipulative Ther. 2012;20:59–65. doi: 10.1179/2042618611Y.0000000025.
    1. Childs JD, Fritz JM, Flynn TW, Irrgang JJ, Johnson KK, Majkowski GR, Delitto A. A clinical prediction rule to identify patients with low back pain most likely to benefit from spinal manipulation: a validation study. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141:920–928. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-141-12-200412210-00008.
    1. Prisciandaro JJ, Rembold J, Brown DG, Brady KT, Tolliver BK. Predictors of clinical trial dropout in individuals with co-occurring bipolar disorder and alcohol dependence. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2011;118:493–496. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2011.03.029.
    1. Wainner RS, Fritz JM, Irrgang JJ, Boninger ML, Delitto A, Allison S. Reliability and diagnostic accuracy of the clinical examination and patient self-report measures for cervical radiculopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2003;28:52–62. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200301010-00014.
    1. Kent P, Keating J. Do primary-care clinicians think that nonspecific low back pain is one condition? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2004;29:1022–1031. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200405010-00015.
    1. Sung NS, Crowley WF, Jr, Genel M. Central challenges facing the national clinical research enterprise. JAMA. 2003;289:1278–1287. doi: 10.1001/jama.289.10.1278.

Source: PubMed

Sponsoren und Mitarbeiter

Krankheiten

Drogeninterventionen

3
Abonnieren