Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38943087›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2024

Determining the extent and frequency of on-site monitoring: a bayesian risk-based approach.

Longshen Xie, Lin Liu, Shein-Chung Chow, Hui Lu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2024. 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. 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

4 authors.

Longshen XieDepartment of Bioinformatics and Biostatistics, School of Life Sciences and Biotechnology, SJTU-Yale Joint Center for Biostatistics and Data Science, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, No 800, Dongchuan Road, Minhang, 200240, Shanghai, China.
Lin LiuInstitute of Natural Sciences, MOE-LSC, School of Mathematical Sciences, CMA-Shanghai, SJTU-Yale Joint Center for Biostatistics and Data Science, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, No 800, Dongchuan Road, Minhang, 200240, Shanghai, China.
Shein-Chung ChowDepartment of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University School of Medicine, 2424 Erwin Road, Suite 11037, Durham, 27705, North Carolina, USA.
Hui LuDepartment of Bioinformatics and Biostatistics, School of Life Sciences and Biotechnology, SJTU-Yale Joint Center for Biostatistics and Data Science, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, No 800, Dongchuan Road, Minhang, 200240, Shanghai, China. huilu@sjtu.edu.cn.

Funding

National Science Foundation of China 12101397 and 12090024Shanghai Municipal Science and Technology Commission 21ZR1431000 and 21JC1402900Shanghai Municipal Science and Technology Major Project 2021SHZDZX0102SJTU Transmed Awards Research (STAR) 20210106
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOn-site monitoring is a crucial component of quality control in clinical trials. However, many cast doubt on its cost-effectiveness due to various issues, such as a lack of monitoring focus that could assist in prioritizing limited resources during a site visit. Consequently, an increasing number of trial sponsors are implementing a hybrid monitoring strategy that combines on-site monitoring with centralised monitoring. One of the primary objectives of centralised monitoring, as stated in the clinical trial guidelines, is to guide and adjust the extent and frequency of on-site monitoring. Quality tolerance limits (QTLs) introduced in ICH E6(R2) and thresholds proposed by TransCelerate Biopharma are two existing approaches for achieving this objective at the trial- and site-levels, respectively. The funnel plot, as another threshold-based site-level method, overcomes the limitation of TransCelerate's method by adjusting thresholds flexibly based on site sizes. Nonetheless, both methods do not transparently explain the reason for choosing the thresholds that they used or whether their choices are optimal in any certain sense. Additionally, related Bayesian monitoring methods are also lacking.

methodsWe propose a simple, transparent, and user-friendly Bayesian-based risk boundary for determining the extent and frequency of on-site monitoring both at the trial- and site-levels. We developed a four-step approach, including: 1) establishing risk levels for key risk indicators (KRIs) along with their corresponding monitoring actions and estimates; 2) calculating the optimal risk boundaries; 3) comparing the outcomes of KRIs against the optimal risk boundaries; and 4) providing recommendations based on the comparison results. Our method can be used to identify the optimal risk boundaries within an established risk level range and is applicable to continuous, discrete, and time-to-event endpoints.

resultsWe evaluate the performance of the proposed risk boundaries via simulations that mimic various realistic clinical trial scenarios. The performance of the proposed risk boundaries is compared against the funnel plot using real clinical trial data. The results demonstrate the applicability and flexibility of the proposed method for clinical trial monitoring. Moreover, we identify key factors that affect the optimality and performance of the proposed risk boundaries, respectively.

conclusionGiven the aforementioned advantages of the proposed risk boundaries, we expect that they will benefit the clinical trial community at large, in particular in the realm of risk-based monitoring.

Indexed as

Bayes TheoremAlgorithmsClinical Trials as TopicHumansQuality ControlCost-effectivenessKey risk indicatorsOptimal risk boundaryRisk-based monitoringTrial quality

Identifiers

PMID38943087
PMCPMC11212185

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.