Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33635586›Full record

SynthesisThe journal of pathology. Clinical research2021

Recommendations for cellular and molecular pathology input into clinical trials: a systematic review and meta-aggregation.

Shujing Jane Lim, Kurinchi Gurusamy, Daniel O'Connor, Abeer M Shaaban, Daniel Brierley, Ian Lewis, David Harrison, Timothy James Kendall, Max Robinson

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The journal of pathology. Clinical research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

9 authors.

Shujing Jane LimDepartment of Cellular Pathology, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4970-7405
Kurinchi GurusamyDivision of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK.
Daniel O'ConnorThe Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, London, UK.
Abeer M ShaabanDepartment of Histopathology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5784-8705
Daniel BrierleyUnit of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Ian LewisNational Cancer Research Institute, London, UK.
David HarrisonUniversity of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9041-9988
Timothy James KendallUniversity of Edinburgh Centre for Inflammation Research, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4174-2786
Max RobinsonDepartment of Cellular Pathology, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4491-6865

Funding

Cancer Research UKDepartment of HealthMedical Research Council MR/N005872/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) 2013 Statement was developed to provide guidance for inclusion of key methodological components in clinical trial protocols. However, these standards do not include guidance specific to pathology input in clinical trials. This systematic review aims to synthesise existing recommendations specific to pathology practice in clinical trials for implementation in trial protocol design. Articles were identified from database searches and deemed eligible for inclusion if they contained: (1) guidance and/or a checklist, which was (2) pathology-related, with (3) content relevant to clinical trial protocols or could influence a clinical trial protocol design from a pathology perspective and (4) were published in 1996 or later. The quality of individual papers was assessed using the AGREE-GRS (Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch & Evaluation - Global Rating Scale) tool, and the confidence in cumulative evidence was evaluated using the GRADE-CERQual (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach. Extracted recommendations were synthesised using the best fit framework method, which includes thematic analysis followed by a meta-aggregative approach to synthesis within the framework. Of the 10 184 records screened and 199 full-text articles reviewed, only 40 guidance resources met the eligibility criteria for inclusion. Recommendations extracted from 22 guidance documents were generalisable enough for data synthesis. Seven recommendation statements were synthesised as follows: (1) multidisciplinary collaboration in trial design with early involvement of pathologists, particularly with respect to the use of biospecimens and associated biomarker/analytical assays and in the evaluation of pathology-related parameters; (2) funding and training for personnel undertaking trial work; (3) selection of an accredited laboratory with suitable facilities to undertake scheduled work; (4) quality assurance of pathology-related parameters; (5) transparent reporting of pathology-related parameters; (6) policies regarding informatics and tracking biospecimens across trial sites; and (7) informed consent for specimen collection and retention for future research.

Indexed as

BiomarkersBiopsyClinical Trials as TopicHumansPathology, ClinicalPathology, MolecularPractice Guidelines as TopicPredictive Value of TestsResearch DesignTreatment OutcomeBiomarkerschecklistclinical trialguidelinepathologyprotocolrecommendationsSPIRITsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID33635586
PMCPMC8073003

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.