Developing the infrastructure for patient review in academic journals

Peer review is a well-established part of academic publishing. Its function is to assess the quality of a manuscript before publication in a journal. Research involvement and Engagement is the world’s first co-produced journal dedicated to developing the evidence base of patient and public involvement and engagement in health and social care research. Alongside traditional academic peer review we also involve other key stakeholders, including patients, carers, the public, policy makers, funders and practitioners. Following a recent survey looking at the motivations and feedback from patient reviewers in academic journals, we consider the key findings, reflect on what we already do and based on the feedback from the survey, we outline plans for future development. These plans include including improving training and guidance for reviewers, changes to systems and workflows, acknowledging and engaging reviewers, and building a sense of community

Perspectives on involvement in the peer-review process : surveys of patient and public reviewers at two journals

Objective In 2014/2015, The BMJ and Research Involvement and Engagement (RIE) became the first journals to routinely include patients and the public in the peer review process of journal articles. This survey explores the perspectives and early experiences of these reviewers. Design A cross-sectional survey. Setting and participants Patient and public reviewers for The BMJ and RIE who have been invited to review. Results The response rate was 69% (157/227) for those who had previously reviewed and 31% (67/217) for those who had not yet reviewed. Reviewers described being motivated to review by the opportunity to include the patient voice in the research process, influence the quality of the biomedical literature and ensure it meets the needs of patients. Of the 157 who had reviewed, 127 (81%) would recommend being a reviewer to other patients and carers. 144 (92%) thought more journals should adopt patient and public review. Few reviewers (16/224, 7%) reported concerns about doing open review. Annual acknowledgement on the journals’ websites was welcomed as was free access to journal information. Participants were keen to have access to more online resources and training to improve their reviewing skills. Suggestions on how to improve the reviewing experience included: allowing more time to review; better and more frequent communication; a more user-friendly process; improving guidance on how to review including videos; improving the matching of papers to reviewers’ experience; providing more varied sample reviews and brief feedback on the usefulness of reviews; developing a sense of community among reviewers; and publicising of the contribution that patient and public review brings. Conclusions Patient and public reviewers shared practical ideas to improve the reviewing experience and these will be reviewed to enhance the guidance and support given to them

Trial Forge Guidance 1 : what is a Study Within A Trial (SWAT)?

Randomised trials are a central component of all evidence-informed health care systems and the evidence coming from them helps to support health care users, health professionals and others to make more informed decisions about treatment. The evidence available to trialists to support decisions on design, conduct and reporting of randomised trials is, however, sparse. Trial Forge is an initiative that aims to increase the evidence base for trial decision-making and in doing so, to improve trial efficiency.One way to fill gaps in evidence is to run Studies Within A Trial, or SWATs. This guidance document provides a brief definition of SWATs, an explanation of why they are important and some practical 'top tips' that come from existing experience of doing SWATs. We hope the guidance will be useful to trialists, methodologists, funders, approvals agencies and others in making clear what a SWAT is, as well as what is involved in doing one

Core Outcome Measures for Trials in People with Coronavirus Disease 2019: Respiratory Failure, Multiorgan Failure, Shortness of Breath, and Recovery

OBJECTIVES: Respiratory failure, multiple organ failure, shortness of breath, recovery, and mortality have been identified as critically important core outcomes by more than 9300 patients, health professionals, and the public from 111 countries in the global coronavirus disease 2019 core outcome set initiative. The aim of this project was to establish the core outcome measures for these domains for trials in coronavirus disease 2019. DESIGN: Three online consensus workshops were convened to establish outcome measures for the four core domains of respiratory failure, multiple organ failure, shortness of breath, and recovery. SETTING: International. PATIENTS: About 130 participants (patients, public, and health professionals) from 17 countries attended the three workshops. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Respiratory failure, assessed by the need for respiratory support based on the World Health Organization Clinical Progression Scale, was considered pragmatic, objective, and with broad applicability to various clinical scenarios. The Sequential Organ Failure Assessment was recommended for multiple organ failure, because it was routinely used in trials and clinical care, well validated, and feasible. The Modified Medical Research Council measure for shortness of breath, with minor adaptations (recall period of 24 hr to capture daily fluctuations and inclusion of activities to ensure relevance and to capture the extreme severity of shortness of breath in people with coronavirus disease 2019), was regarded as fit for purpose for this indication. The recovery measure was developed de novo and defined as the absence of symptoms, resumption of usual daily activities, and return to the previous state of health prior to the illness, using a 5-point Likert scale, and was endorsed. CONCLUSIONS: The coronavirus disease 2019 core outcome set recommended core outcome measures have content validity and are considered the most feasible and acceptable among existing measures. Implementation of the core outcome measures in trials in coronavirus disease 2019 will ensure consistency and relevance of the evidence to inform decision-making and care of patients with coronavirus disease 2019

International Survey to Establish Prioritized Outcomes for Trials in People With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

OBJECTIVES: There are over 4,000 trials conducted in people with coronavirus disease 2019. However, the variability of outcomes and the omission of patient-centered outcomes may diminish the impact of these trials on decision-making. The aim of this study was to generate a consensus-based, prioritized list of outcomes for coronavirus disease 2019 trials. DESIGN: In an online survey conducted in English, Chinese, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish languages, adults with coronavirus disease 2019, their family members, health professionals, and the general public rated the importance of outcomes using a 9-point Likert scale (7-9, critical importance) and completed a Best-Worst Scale to estimate relative importance. Participant comments were analyzed thematically. SETTING: International. SUBJECTS: Adults 18 years old and over with confirmed or suspected coronavirus disease 2019, their family members, members of the general public, and health professionals (including clinicians, policy makers, regulators, funders, and researchers). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS: None. MAIN RESULTS: In total, 9,289 participants from 111 countries (776 people with coronavirus disease 2019 or family members, 4,882 health professionals, and 3,631 members of the public) completed the survey. The four outcomes of highest priority for all three groups were: mortality, respiratory failure, pneumonia, and organ failure. Lung function, lung scarring, sepsis, shortness of breath, and oxygen level in the blood were common to the top 10 outcomes across all three groups (mean > 7.5, median ≥ 8, and > 70% of respondents rated the outcome as critically important). Patients/family members rated fatigue, anxiety, chest pain, muscle pain, gastrointestinal problems, and cardiovascular disease higher than health professionals. Four themes underpinned prioritization: fear of life-threatening, debilitating, and permanent consequences; addressing knowledge gaps; enabling preparedness and planning; and tolerable or infrequent outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Life-threatening respiratory and other organ outcomes were consistently highly prioritized by all stakeholder groups. Patients/family members gave higher priority to many patient-reported outcomes compared with health professionals.The project is funded by the Flinders University and the National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce, convened by the Australian Living Evidence Consortium, hosted by Cochrane Australia, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University supported by the Australian Government, Victorian Department of Health and Human Services, Ian Potter Foundation, Walter Cottman Endowment Fund (managed by Equity Trustees) and the Lord Mayor's Charitable Foundation). AT is supported by The University of Sydney Robinson Fellowship. ACM is supported by a Clinical Research Career Development Fellowship from the Wellcome Trust (WT 2055214/Z/16/Z

Core Outcomes Set for Trials in People With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

OBJECTIVES: The outcomes reported in trials in coronavirus disease 2019 are extremely heterogeneous and of uncertain patient relevance, limiting their applicability for clinical decision-making. The aim of this workshop was to establish a core outcomes set for trials in people with suspected or confirmed coronavirus disease 2019. DESIGN: Four international online multistakeholder consensus workshops were convened to discuss proposed core outcomes for trials in people with suspected or confirmed coronavirus disease 2019, informed by a survey involving 9,289 respondents from 111 countries. The transcripts were analyzed thematically. The workshop recommendations were used to finalize the core outcomes set. SETTING: International. SUBJECTS: Adults 18 years old and over with confirmed or suspected coronavirus disease 2019, their family members, members of the general public and health professionals (including clinicians, policy makers, regulators, funders, researchers). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS: None. MAIN RESULTS: Six themes were identified. "Responding to the critical and acute health crisis" reflected the immediate focus on saving lives and preventing life-threatening complications that underpinned the high prioritization of mortality, respiratory failure, and multiple organ failure. "Capturing different settings of care" highlighted the need to minimize the burden on hospitals and to acknowledge outcomes in community settings. "Encompassing the full trajectory and severity of disease" was addressing longer term impacts and the full spectrum of illness (e.g. shortness of breath and recovery). "Distinguishing overlap, correlation and collinearity" meant recognizing that symptoms such as shortness of breath had distinct value and minimizing overlap (e.g. lung function and pneumonia were on the continuum toward respiratory failure). "Recognizing adverse events" refers to the potential harms of new and evolving interventions. "Being cognizant of family and psychosocial wellbeing" reflected the pervasive impacts of coronavirus disease 2019. CONCLUSIONS: Mortality, respiratory failure, multiple organ failure, shortness of breath, and recovery are critically important outcomes to be consistently reported in coronavirus disease 2019 trials

Protocol for the development of a tool (INSPECT-SR) to identify problematic randomised controlled trials in systematic reviews of health interventions

Introduction: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) inform healthcare decisions. It is now apparent that some published RCTs contain false data and some appear to have been entirely fabricated. Systematic reviews are performed to identify and synthesise all RCTs that have been conducted on a given topic. While it is usual to assess methodological features of the RCTs in the process of undertaking a systematic review, it is not usual to consider whether the RCTs contain false data. Studies containing false data therefore go unnoticed and contribute to systematic review conclusions. The INveStigating ProblEmatic Clinical Trials in Systematic Reviews (INSPECT-SR) project will develop a tool to assess the trustworthiness of RCTs in systematic reviews of healthcare-related interventions. Methods and analysis: The INSPECT-SR tool will be developed using expert consensus in combination with empirical evidence, over five stages: (1) a survey of experts to assemble a comprehensive list of checks for detecting problematic RCTs, (2) an evaluation of the feasibility and impact of applying the checks to systematic reviews, (3) a Delphi survey to determine which of the checks are supported by expert consensus, culminating in, (4) a consensus meeting to select checks to be included in a draft tool and to determine its format and (5) prospective testing of the draft tool in the production of new health systematic reviews, to allow refinement based on user feedback. We anticipate that the INSPECT-SR tool will help researchers to identify problematic studies and will help patients by protecting them from the influence of false data on their healthcare. Ethics and dissemination: The University of Manchester ethics decision tool was used, and this returned the result that ethical approval was not required for this project (30 September 2022), which incorporates secondary research and surveys of professionals about subjects relating to their expertise. Informed consent will be obtained from all survey participants. All results will be published as open-access articles. The final tool will be made freely available.National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Research for Patient Benefit programme (NIHR203568)

Abstracts from the NIHR INVOLVE Conference 2017

n/

Review and publication of protocol submissions to Trials - what have we learned in 10 years?

Abstract Trials has 10 years of experience in providing open access publication of protocols for randomised controlled trials. In this editorial, the senior editors and editors-in-chief of Trials discuss editorial issues regarding managing trial protocol submissions, including the content and format of the protocol, timing of submission, approaches to tracking protocol amendments, and the purpose of peer reviewing a protocol submission. With the clarification and guidance provided, we hope we can make the process of publishing trial protocols more efficient and useful to trial investigators and readers