Screen failure data in clinical trials: Are screening logs worth it?

Abstract

Background

Clinical trials frequently spend considerable effort to collect data on patients who were assessed for eligibility but not enrolled. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines’ recommended flow diagram for randomized clinical trials reinforces the belief that the collection of screening data is a necessary and worthwhile endeavor. The rationale for collecting screening data includes scientific, trial management, and ethno-socio-cultural reasons.

Purpose

We posit that the cost of collecting screening data is not justified, in part due to inability to centrally monitor and verify the screening data in the same manner as other clinical trial data.

Methods

To illustrate the effort and site-to-site variability, we analyzed the screening data from a multicenter, randomized clinical trial of patients with transient ischemic attack or minor ischemic stroke (Platelet-Oriented Inhibition in New Transient Ischemic Attack and Minor Ischemic Stroke (POINT)).

Results

Data were collected on over 27,000 patients screened across 172 enrolling sites, 95% of whom were not enrolled. Although the rate of return of screen failure logs was high overall (95%), there were a considerable number of logs that were returned with ‘no data to report’ (23%), often due to administrative reasons rather than no patients screened.

Conclusion

In spite of attempts to standardize the collection of screening data, due to differences in site processes, multicenter clinical trials face challenges in collecting those data completely and uniformly. The efforts required to centrally collect high-quality data on an extensive number of screened patients may outweigh the scientific value of the data. Moreover, the lack of a standardized definition of ‘screened’ and the challenges of collecting meaningful characteristics for patients who have not signed consent limits the ability to compare across studies and to assess generalizability and selection bias as intended.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Schulz

Altman

Maher

; for the CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 statement: Updated Guidelines for Reporting parallel group randomized trials. Ann Intern Med 2010; 152: 726–32.

Begg

Cho

Eastwood

. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials: The CONSORT statement. JAMA 1996; 276: 637–39.

Meinert

. Beyond CONSORT: Need for improved reporting standards for clinical trials. Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials. JAMA 1998; 279: 1487–89.

Moher

Hopewell

Schulz

.; for the CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 2010; 340: c869.

Slieker

FJA

Kompanje

EJO

Murray

. Importance of screening logs in clinical trials for severe traumatic brain injury. Neurosurgery 2008; 62: 1321–29.

National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Available at: http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.html (1979, accessed 14 May 2013).

Grinnon

Miller

Marler

. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Common Data Element Project – Approach and methods. Clin Trials 2012; 9: 322–29.

Maas

AIR

Kompanje

EJP

Slieker

FJA

Stocchetti

. Differences in completion of screening logs between Europe and the United States in an emergency phase III trial resulting from HIPAA requirements. Ann Surg 2005; 241: 382–83.

Kompanje

EJO

Maas

AIR

. Is the Glasgow Coma Scale score protected health information? The effect of new United States regulations (HIPAA) on completion of screening logs in emergency research trials. Intensive Care Med 2006; 32: 313–14.