Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31665920›Full record

ArticleClinical trials (London, England)2020

A third trial oversight committee: Functions, benefits and issues.

J Athene Lane, Carrol Gamble, William J Cragg, Doreen Tembo, Matthew R Sydes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical trials (London, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

J Athene LaneBristol Randomised Trials Collaboration, Bristol Trials Centre, Bristol University, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7578-4925
Carrol GambleLiverpool Clinical Trials Centre, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
William J CraggMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, University College London (UCL), London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1274-8521
Doreen TemboNational Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Southampton, UK.
Matthew R SydesMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, University College London (UCL), London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9323-1371

Funding

Medical Research Council G0800800Medical Research Council MC_UU_12023/24Medical Research Council MR/K025635/1Medical Research Council MR/L004933/1Medical Research Council MR/L004933/2
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

aimsClinical trial oversight is central to the safety of participants and production of robust data. The United Kingdom Medical Research Council originally set out an oversight structure comprising three committees in 1998. The first committee, led by the trial team, is hands-on with trial conduct/operations ('Trial Management Group') and essential. The second committee (Data Monitoring Committee), usually completely independent of the trial, reviews accumulating trial evidence and is used by most later phase trials. The Independent Data Monitoring Committee makes recommendations to the third oversight committee. The third committee, ('Trial Steering Committee'), facilitates in-depth interactions of independent and non-independent trial members and gives broader oversight (blinded to comparative analysis). We investigated the roles and functioning of the third oversight committee with multiple research methods. We reflect upon these findings to standardise the committee's remit and operation and to potentially increase its usage.

methodsWe utilised findings from our recent published suite of research on the third oversight committee to inform guideline revision. In brief, we conducted a survey of 38 United Kingdom-registered Clinical Trials Units, reviewed a cohort of 264 published trials, observed 8 third oversight committee meetings and interviewed 52 trialists. We convened an expert panel to discuss third oversight committees. Subsequently, we interviewed nine patient/lay third committee members and eight committee Chairs.

resultsIn the survey, most Clinical Trials Units required a third committee for all their trials (27/38, 71%) with independent members (ranging from 1 to 6). In the survey and interviews, the independence of the third committee was valued to make unbiased consideration of Independent Data Monitoring Committee recommendations and to advise on trial progress, protocol changes and recruitment issues in conjunction with the trial leadership. The third committee also advised funders and sponsors about trial continuation and represented patients and the public by including lay members. Of the cohort of 264 published trials, 144 reported a 'steering' committee (55%), but the independence of these members was not described so these may have been internal Trial Management Groups. Around two thirds of papers (60%) reported having an Independent Data Monitoring Committee and 26.9% neither a steering nor an Independent Data Monitoring Committee. However, before revising the third committee charter (Terms of Reference), greater standardisation is needed around defining member independence, composition, primacy of decision-making, interactions with other committees and the lifespan.

conclusionA third oversight committee has benefits for trial oversight and conduct, and a revised charter will facilitate greater standardisation and wider adoption.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchClinical Trials Data Monitoring CommitteesCohort StudiesHumansPatient AdvocacyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch DesignSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited KingdomcharterData Monitoring Committeepatient advocacyRandomised controlled trialstrial oversightTrial Steering Committee

Identifiers

PMID31665920
PMCPMC7433693

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.