Maintenance Notice

Due to necessary scheduled maintenance, the JMIR Publications website will be unavailable from Wednesday, July 01, 2020 at 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM EST. We apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you.

Who will be affected?

Accepted for/Published in: JMIR Public Health and Surveillance

Date Submitted: Nov 14, 2018
Open Peer Review Period: Dec 3, 2018 - Jan 28, 2019
Date Accepted: Jun 15, 2020
(closed for review but you can still tweet)

The final, peer-reviewed published version of this preprint can be found here:

Profiling Clinical Research Activity at an Academic Medical Center by Using Institutional Databases: Content Analysis

Langford A, Sherman S, Thornton R, Nightingale K, Kwon S, Chavis-Keeling D, Link N, Cronstein B, Hochman J, Trachtman H

Profiling Clinical Research Activity at an Academic Medical Center by Using Institutional Databases: Content Analysis

JMIR Public Health Surveill 2020;6(3):e12813

DOI: 10.2196/12813

PMID: 32831180

PMCID: 7477669

Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.

Profiling Clinical Research Activity at an Academic Medical Center by Using Institutional Databases: Content Analysis

  • Aisha Langford; 
  • Scott Sherman; 
  • Rachel Thornton; 
  • Kira Nightingale; 
  • Simona Kwon; 
  • Deborah Chavis-Keeling; 
  • Nathan Link; 
  • Bruce Cronstein; 
  • Judith Hochman; 
  • Howard Trachtman

Background:

It is important to monitor the scope of clinical research of all types, to involve participants of all ages and subgroups in studies that are appropriate to their condition, and to ensure equal access and broad validity of the findings.

Objective:

We conducted a review of clinical research performed at New York University with the following objectives: (1) to determine the utility of institutional administrative data to characterize clinical research activity; (2) to assess the inclusion of special populations; and (3) to determine if the type, initiation, and completion of the study differed by age.

Methods:

Data for all studies that were institutional review board–approved between January 1, 2014, and November 2, 2016, were obtained from the research navigator system, which was launched in November 2013. One module provided details about the study protocol, and another module provided the characteristics of individual participants. Research studies were classified as observational or interventional. Descriptive statistics were used to assess the characteristics of clinical studies across the lifespan, by type, and over time.

Results:

A total of 22%-24% of studies included children (minimum age <18 years) and 4%-5% focused exclusively on pediatrics. Similarly, 64%-72% of studies included older patients (maximum age >65 years) but only 5%-12% focused exclusively on geriatrics. Approximately 85% of the studies included both male and female participants. Of the remaining studies, those open only to girls or women were approximately 3 times as common as those confined to boys or men. A total of 56%-58% of projects focused on nonvulnerable patients. Among the special populations studied, children (12%-15%) were the most common. Noninterventional trial types included research on human data sets (24%), observational research (22%), survey research (16%), and biospecimen research (8%). The percentage of projects designed to test an intervention in a vulnerable population increased from 17% in 2014 to 21% in 2015.

Conclusions:

Pediatric participants were the special population that was most often studied based on the number of registered projects that included children and adolescents. However, they were much less likely to be successfully enrolled in research studies compared with adults older than 65 years. Only 20% of the studies were interventional, and 20%-35% of participants in this category were from vulnerable populations. More studies are exclusively devoted to women’s health issues compared with men’s health issues.


 Citation

Please cite as:

Langford A, Sherman S, Thornton R, Nightingale K, Kwon S, Chavis-Keeling D, Link N, Cronstein B, Hochman J, Trachtman H

Profiling Clinical Research Activity at an Academic Medical Center by Using Institutional Databases: Content Analysis

JMIR Public Health Surveill 2020;6(3):e12813

DOI: 10.2196/12813

PMID: 32831180

PMCID: 7477669

Per the author's request the PDF is not available.

© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.