Study Protocol Representation
Clinical research is an extremely complex process involving multiple stakeholders, regulatory frameworks, and environments. The core essence of a clinical study is the study protocol, an abstract concept that comprises a study’s investigational plan—including the actions, measurements, and analyses to be undertaken. The “planned study protocol” drives key scientific and biomedical activities during study execution and analysis. The “executed study protocol” represents the activities that actually took place in the study, often differing from the planned protocol, and is the proper context for interpreting final study results. To date, clinical research informatics (CRI) has primarily focused on facilitating electronic sharing of text-based study protocol documents. A much more powerful approach is to instantiate and share the abstract protocol information as a computable protocol model, or e-protocol, which will yield numerous potential benefits. At the design stage, the e-protocol would facilitate simulations to optimize study characteristics and could guide investigators to use standardized data elements and case report forms (CRFs). At the execution stage, the e-protocol could create human-readable text documents; facilitate patient recruitment processes; promote timely, complete, and accurate CRFs; and enhance decision support to minimize protocol deviations. During the analysis stage, the e-protocol could drive appropriate statistical techniques and results reporting and support proper cross-study data synthesis and interpretation. With the average clinical trial costing millions of dollars, such increased efficiency in the design and execution of clinical research is critical. Our vision for achieving these major CRI advances through a computable study protocol is described in this chapter.
KeywordsClinical research informatics Study protocol E-protocol Case report form Executed study protocol Computable study protocol Web ontology language Unified Modeling Language
Authors thank Ida Sim for her substantial contributions to a previous version of this chapter that appeared in Springer 2012 version of this text.
- 1.Shankar R, O’Connor M, Martins S, Tu S, Parrish D, Musen M, Das A. A knowledge-driven approach to manage clinical trial protocols in the Immune Tolerance Network. In: American Medical Informatics Association symposium, Washington, DC 25 Oct 2005 [poster]; 2005.Google Scholar
- 3.Chan AW, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Hróbjartsson A, Krleža-Jeric K, et al. The SPIRIT initiative: defining standard protocol items for randomised trials. Ger J Evid Qual Health Care. 2008;2008:S27.Google Scholar
- 6.Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium. CDASH. 2010. Available at http://www.cdisc.org/cdash. Accessed Aug 2011.
- 7.National Cancer Institute. Standardized Case Report Form (CRF) Work Group. 2009. Available at https://cabig.nci.nih.gov/workspaces/CTMS/CTWG_Implementation/crf-standardization-sig/index_html. Accessed Aug 2011.
- 8.University of California San Francisco. The Ontology of Clinical Research (OCRe). 2009. Available at http://rctbank.ucsf.edu/home/ocre. Accessed Aug 2011.
- 10.The Ontology for Biomedical Investigations. Home page. 2009. Available at http://obi-ontology.org/page/Main_Page. Accessed Aug 2011.
- 17.Sim I, Carini S, Tu S, Wynden R, Pollock BH, Mollah SA, Gabriel D, Hagler HK, Scheuermann RH, Lehmann HP, Wittkowski KM, Nahm M, Bakken S. The human studies database project: federating human studies design data using the ontology of clinical research. AMIA Summits Transl Sci Proc. 2010;2010:51–5.Google Scholar
- 19.Human Studies Database (HSDB) Project Wiki. Home page. 2010. Available at https://hsdbwiki.org/index.php/HSDB_Collaborative_Wiki. Accessed Aug 2011.
- 20.Shankar RD, Martins SB, O’Connor MJ, Parrish DB, Das AK. Epoch: an ontological framework to support clinical trials management. In: Proceedings of the international workshop on healthcare information and knowledge management, Arlington, November 11–11, 2006. HIKM ’06. New York: ACM; 2006. p. 25–32. https://doi.org/10.1145/1183568.1183574.
- 22.CTSpedia. Web-based interactive system for study design, optimization and management (WISDOM). 2009. Available at http://www.ctspedia.org/do/view/CTSpedia/WISDOM. Accessed Aug 2011.
- 24.Niland J. ASPIRE: agreement on standardized protocol inclusion requirements for eligibility. In: An unpublished web resource. 2007.Google Scholar
- 25.Tu SW, Peleg M, Carini S, Rubin D, Sim I. ERGO: a template-based expression language for encoding eligibility criteria 2008. http://220.127.116.11:8080/homepage/ERGO_Technical_Documentation.pdf.
- 28.Cohen E. caMATCH: a patient matching tool for clinical trials. In: caBIG 2005 Annual Meeting, Bethesda, MD. April 12–13, 2005.Google Scholar
- 29.Tu SW, Campbell JR, Glasgow J, Nyman MA, McClure R, et al. The SAGE guideline model: achievements and overview. JAMA. 2007;14:589–98.Google Scholar
- 34.Luce BR, Kramer JM, Goodman SN, Conner JT, Tunis S, Whicher D, Sanford Schwartz J. Rethinking randomized clinical trials for comparative effectiveness research: the need for transformational change. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:206–9. Available at http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/0000605-200908040-00126v1?papetoc. Accessed Aug 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 36.Niland JC, Rouse LR. Clinical research systems and integration with medical systems. In: Ochs MF, Casagrande JT, Davuluri RV, editors. Biomedical informatics for cancer research. New York: Springer; 2010.Google Scholar