ā†“ Skip to main content

Exploring the role and function of trial steering committees: results of an expert panel meeting

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
21 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
101 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Exploring the role and function of trial steering committees: results of an expert panel meeting
Published in
Trials, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13063-015-1125-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicola L. Harman, Elizabeth J. Conroy, Steff C. Lewis, Gordon Murray, John Norrie, Matt R. Sydes, J. Athene Lane, Douglas G. Altman, Colin Baigent, Judith M. Bliss, Marion K. Campbell, Diana Elbourne, Stephen Evans, Peter Sandercock, Carrol Gamble

Abstract

The independent oversight of clinical trials, which is recommended by the Medical Research Council (MRC) Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice, is typically provided by an independent advisory Data Monitoring Committee (DMC) and an independent executive committee, to whom the DMC makes recommendations. The detailed roles and function of this executive committee, known as the Trial Steering Committee (TSC), have not previously been studied or reviewed since those originally proposed by the MRC in 1998. An expert panel (nā€‰=ā€‰7) was convened comprising statisticians, clinicians and trial methodologists with prior TSC experience. Twelve questions about the role and responsibilities of the TSC were discussed by the panel at two full-day meetings. Each meeting was transcribed in full and the discussions were summarised. The expert panel reached agreement on the role of the TSC, to which it was accountable, the membership, the definition of independence, and the experience and training needed. The management of ethical issues, difficult/complex situations and issues the TSC should not ask the DMC to make recommendations on were more difficult to discuss without specific examples, but support existed for further work to help share issues and to provide appropriate training for TSC members. Additional topics discussed, which had not been identified by previous work relating to the DMCs but were pertinent to the role of the TSC, included the following: review of data sharing requests, indemnity, lifespan of the TSC, general TSC administration, and the roles of both the Funder and the Sponsor. This paper presents recommendations that will contribute to the revision and update of the MRC TSC terms of reference. Uncertainty remains in some areas due to the absence of real-life examples; future guidance on these issues would benefit from a repository of case studies. Notably, the role of a patient and public involvement (PPI) contributor was not discussed, and further work is warranted to explore the role of a PPI contributor in independent trial oversight.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 100 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 18%
Student > Master 13 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 11%
Other 10 10%
Student > Postgraduate 5 5%
Other 21 21%
Unknown 23 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 11%
Mathematics 5 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 4%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Other 19 19%
Unknown 28 28%