Lack of transparent reporting of trial monitoring approaches in randomised controlled trials: A systematic review of contemporary protocol papers

• Published in: Clinical trials (London, England) Vol. 20; no. 2; pp. 121 - 132
• Main Authors: Hsieh, Shao-Fan, Yorke-Edwards, Victoria, Murray, Macey L, Diaz-Montana, Carlos, Love, Sharon B, Sydes, Matthew R
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London, England SAGE Publications 01.04.2023
• Subjects: Checklist; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Research Design; Systematic Reviews as Topic; reporting monitoring; trial monitoring; on-site monitoring; Systematic review; risk-based monitoring; randomised controlled trial; protocol paper; central monitoring
• DOI: 10.1177/17407745221143449
• ISSN: 1740-7745

Background: Monitoring is essential to ensure patient safety and data integrity in clinical trials as per Good Clinical Practice. The Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials Statement and its checklist guides authors to include monitoring in their protocols. We investigated how well monitoring was reported in published ‘protocol papers’ for contemporary randomised controlled trials. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed to identify eligible protocol papers published in selected journals between 1 January 2020 and 31 May 2020. Protocol papers were classified by whether they reported monitoring and, if so, by the details of monitoring. Data were summarised descriptively. Results: Of 811 protocol papers for randomised controlled trials, 386 (48%; 95% CI: 44%–51%) explicitly reported some monitoring information. Of these, 20% (77/386) reported monitoring information consistent with an on-site monitoring approach, and 39% (152/386) with central monitoring, 26% (101/386) with a mixed approach, while 14% (54/386) did not provide sufficient information to specify an approach. Only 8% (30/386) of randomised controlled trials reported complete details about all of scope, frequency and organisation of monitoring; frequency of monitoring was the least reported. However, 6% (25/386) of papers used the term ‘audit’ to describe ‘monitoring’. Discussion: Monitoring information was reported in only approximately half of the protocol papers. Suboptimal reporting of monitoring hinders the clinical community from having the full information on which to judge the validity of a trial and jeopardises the value of protocol papers and the credibility of the trial itself. Greater efforts are needed to promote the transparent reporting of monitoring to journal editors and authors.