Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33494785›Full record

ArticleTrials2021

Streamlining the institutional review board process in pragmatic randomized clinical trials: challenges and lessons learned from the Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-Term Effectiveness (ADAPTABLE) trial.

Guillaume Marquis-Gravel, Holly Robertson, W Schuyler Jones, Danielle Riley, Daniel E Ford, David Crenshaw, Yvonne A Joosten, Lindsey Rudov, Adrian F Hernandez, Rachel Hess

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Pragmatic clinical trial design in emergency medicine: Study considerations and design types.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2022
    Article
  7. Extracting Significant Comorbid Diseases from MeSH Index of PubMed.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
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

10 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Guillaume Marquis-GravelDuke Clinical Research Institute, 200 Morris St, Durham, NC, 27701, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2965-1504
Holly RobertsonDuke Clinical Research Institute, 200 Morris St, Durham, NC, 27701, USA.
W Schuyler JonesDuke Clinical Research Institute, 200 Morris St, Durham, NC, 27701, USA.
Danielle RileyUniversity of Iowa College of Public Health, 145 N Riverside Dr, Iowa City, IA, 52242, USA.
Daniel E FordInstitute for Clinical and Translational Research, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, 750 E. Pratt Street, Baltimore, MD, 21202, USA.
David CrenshawInstitute for Medicine and Public Health, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 2525 West End Avenue, Suite 1200, Nashville, TN, 37203, USA.
Yvonne A JoostenInstitute for Medicine and Public Health, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 2525 West End Avenue, Suite 1200, Nashville, TN, 37203, USA.
Lindsey RudovLouisiana Public Health Institute, 1515 Poydras St #1200, New Orleans, LA, 70112, USA.
Adrian F HernandezDuke Clinical Research Institute, 200 Morris St, Durham, NC, 27701, USA.
Rachel HessDepartments of Population Health Sciences and Internal Medicine, University of Utah School of Medicine, 295 Chipeta Way Williams Building Room 1N492, Salt Lake City, UT, 84108, USA. rachel.hess@hsc.utah.edu.
Clinical Research Institute · USVanderbilt University Medical Center · USJohns Hopkins University · USLouisiana Public Health Institute · USUniversity of Iowa · USUniversity of Utah · US

Funding

Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute ASP-1502-27029
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNew considerations during the ethical review processes may emerge from innovative, yet unfamiliar operational methods enabled in pragmatic randomized controlled trials (RCT), potentially making institutional review board (IRB) evaluation more complex. In this manuscript, key components of the pragmatic "Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-Centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-term Effectiveness (ADAPTABLE)" randomized trial that required a reappraisal of the IRB submission, review, and approval processes are discussed. MAIN TEXT: ADAPTABLE is a pragmatic, multicenter, open-label RCT evaluating the comparative effectiveness of two doses of aspirin widely used for secondary prevention (81 mg and 325 mg) in 15,000 patients with an established history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. The electronic informed consent form is completed online by the participants at the time of enrollment, and endpoint ascertainment is conducted through queries of electronic health records. IRB challenges encountered regarding centralized IRB evaluation, electronic informed consent, patient engagement, and risk determination in ADAPTABLE are described in this manuscript. The experience of ADAPTABLE encapsulates how pragmatic protocol components intended to facilitate the study conduct have been tempered by unexpected, yet justified concerns raised by local IRBs. How the lessons learned can be applied to future similar pragmatic trials is delineated.

conclusionDevelopment of engaging communication channels between IRB and study personnel in pragmatic randomized trials as early as at the time of protocol design allows to reduce issues with IRB approval. Integrations of the lessons learned in ADAPTABLE regarding the IRB process for centralized IRBs, informed consent, patient engagement, and risk determination can be emulated and will be instrumental in future pragmatic studies.

Indexed as

AdultAspirinAtherosclerosisElectronic Health RecordsEthics Committees, ResearchFemaleHumansInformed ConsentMaleMiddle AgedMulticenter Studies as TopicPatient ParticipationPragmatic Clinical Trials as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch DesignRisk AssessmentAspirinAspirinCardiologyEthicsInformed consentInstitutional review boardsPragmatic trials

Identifiers

PMID33494785
PMCPMC7831187
OpenAlexW3125935162

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.