Advertisement

Protocol Development and Preparation for a Clinical Trial

Chapter

Abstract

A protocol is the most critical document in a research study. It plays a central role in the conduct of a study by describing how a hypothesis will be tested. It provides the necessary guidance and serves as the main reference for all study personnel, while also providing for the welfare and safety of all study participants; it must be prospective, detailed, and comprehensive. A protocol is organized in chronological divisions; the background and rationale provide the first impression of the investigators; study endpoints, especially the primary ones, drive the rest of the study design. The study population, methodological details, schedule of visits/procedures, and methods for ensuring patient safety must be described in detail, along with the study organization, administration, and anticipated results and significance. A high-quality protocol will more likely lead to a valid conclusion, whether it confirms or refutes the hypothesis, thereby reducing the likelihood of needing a costly repeat study.

Keywords

Study Endpoint Case Report Form Baseline Visit Final Visit Study Personnel 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Spilker B. Guide to clinical trials. New York: Raven; 1991.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Treweek S, McCormack K, Abalos E, Campbell M, Ramsay C, Zwarenstein M, PRACTIHC Collaboration. The trial protocol tool: the PRACTIHC software tool that supported the writing of protocols for pragmatic randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59:1127–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sellier P, Chatellier G, D’Agrosa-Boiteux MC, Douard H, Dubois C, Goepfert PC, Monpère C, Saint Pierre A, Investigators of the PERISCOP study. Use of non-invasive cardiac investigations to predict clinical endpoints after coronary bypass graft surgery in coronary artery disease patients: results from the prognosis and evaluation of risk in the coronary operated patient (PERISCOP) study. Eur Heart J. 2003;24:916–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mahaffey KW, Harrington RA, Akkerhuis M, Kleiman NS, Berdan LG, Crenshaw BS, Tardiff BE, Granger CB, DeJong I, Bhapkar M, Widimsky P, Corbalon R, Lee KL, Deckers JW, Simoons ML, Topol EJ, Califf RM, For the PURSUIT Investigators. Disagreements between central clinical events committee and site investigator assessments of myocardial infarction endpoints in an international clinical trial: review of the PURSUIT study. Curr Control Trials Cardiovasc Med. 2001;2:187–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Marang van de Mheen PJ, Hollander EJ, Kievit J. Effects of study methodology on adverse outcome occurrence and mortality. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19:399–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Borgsteede SD, Deliens L, Francke AL, Stalman WA, Willems DL, van Eijk JT, van der Wal G. Defining the patient population: one of the problems for palliative care research. Palliat Med. 2006;20:63–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chin Feman SP, Nguyen LT, Quilty MT, Kerr CE, Nam BH, Conboy LA, Singer JP, Park M, Lembo AJ, Kaptchuk TJ, Davis RB. Effectiveness of recruitment in clinical trials: an analysis of methods used in a trial for irritable bowel syndrome patients. Contemp Clin Trials. 2008;29:241–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sisk JE, Horowitz CR, Wang JJ, McLaughlin MA, Hebert PL, Tuzzio L. The success of recruiting minorities, women, and elderly into a randomized controlled effectiveness trial. Mt Sinai J Med. 2008;75:37–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Armitage J, Souhami R, Friedman L, Hilbrich L, Holland J, Muhlbaier LH, Shannon J, Van Nie A. The impact of privacy and confidentiality laws on the conduct of clinical trials. Clin Trials. 2008;5:70–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Anisimov VV, Fedorov VV. Modelling, prediction and adaptive adjustment of recruitment in multicentre trials. Stat Med. 2007;26:4958–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Abbas I, Rovira J, Casanovas J. Clinical trial optimization: Monte Carlo simulation Markov model for planning clinical trials recruitment. Contemp Clin Trials. 2007;28:220–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Franciosa JA. Commentary on the use of run-in periods in clinical trials. Am J Cardiol. 1999;83:942–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Romano P. Automation of in-silico data analysis processes through workflow management systems. Brief Bioinform. 2008;9:57–68.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lacroix Z. Biological data integration: wrapping data and tools. IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed. 2002;6:123–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shah AR, Singhal M, Klicker KR, Stephan EG, Wiley HS, Waters KM. Enabling high-throughput data management for systems biology: the Bioin­formatics Resource Manager. Bioinformatics. 2007;23:906–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nussenblatt RB, Meinert CL. The status of clinical trials: cause for concern. J Transl Med. 2010;8:65–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Smith A, Palmer S, Johnson DW, Navaneethan S, Valentini M, Strippoli GF. How to conduct a randomized trial. Nephrology. 2010;15:740–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Paschoale HS, Barbosa FR, Nita ME, Carrilho FJ, Ono-Nita SK. Clinical trials profile: professionals and sites. Contemp Clin Trials. 2010;31:438–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bader JD, Robinson DS, Gilbert GH, Ritter AV, Makhija SK, Funkhouser KA, Amaechi BT, Shugars DA, Laws R. X-ACT collaborative research group. Four “lessons learned” while implementing a multi-site caries prevention trial. J Public Health Dent. 2010;70:171–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Treweek S, Pitkethly M, Cook J, Kjeldstrøm M, Taskila T, Johansen M, Sullivan F, Wilson S, Jackson C, Jones R, Mitchell E. Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised controlled trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;4:MR000013.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Helgesson G, Ludvigsson J, Gustafsson Stolt U. How to handle informed consent in longitudinal studies when participants have a limited understanding of the study. J Med Ethics. 2005;31:670–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jones JW, McCullough LB, Richman BW. Informed consent: it’s not just signing a form. Thorac Surg Clin. 2005;15:451–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Albrecht TL, Franks MM, Ruckdeschel JC. Communication and informed consent. Curr Opin Oncol. 2005;17:336–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    del Carmen MG, Joffe S. Informed consent for medical treatment and research: a review. Oncologist. 2005;10:636–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pocock SJ. Clinical trials: a practical approach. New York: Wiley; 1983.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Portney LG, Watkins MP. Foundations of clinical research: applications to practice. 2nd ed. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall; 2000.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Basic questions and answers about clinical trials. Rockville (MD): Food and Drug Administration (US). Last Updated: 07/16/2009. http://www.fda.gov/­forconsumers/byaudience/forpatientadvocates/­hivandaidsactivities/ucm121345.htm Accessed 11 Aug 2011.
  28. 28.
    Piantadosi S. Clinical trials: a methodologic perspective. New York: Wiley; 1997.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of MedicineState University of New York Downstate Medical CenterBrooklynUSA

Personalised recommendations