IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0180635.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Towards the development of a comprehensive framework: Qualitative systematic survey of definitions of clinical research quality

Author

Listed:
  • Belinda von Niederhäusern
  • Stefan Schandelmaier
  • Marie Mi Bonde
  • Nicole Brunner
  • Lars G Hemkens
  • Marielle Rutquist
  • Neera Bhatnagar
  • Gordon H Guyatt
  • Christiane Pauli-Magnus
  • Matthias Briel

Abstract

Objective: To systematically survey existing definitions, concepts, and criteria of clinical research quality, both developed by stakeholder groups as well as in the medical literature. This study serves as a first step in the development of a comprehensive framework for the quality of clinical research. Study design and setting: We systematically and in duplicate searched definitions, concepts and criteria of clinical research quality on websites of stakeholders in clinical research until no further insights emerged and in MEDLINE up to February 2015. Stakeholders included governmental bodies, regulatory agencies, the pharmaceutical industry, academic and commercial contract research organizations, initiatives, research ethics committees, patient organizations and funding agencies from 13 countries. Data synthesis involved descriptive and qualitative analyses following the Framework Method on definitions, concepts, and criteria of clinical research quality. Descriptive codes were applied and grouped into clusters to identify common and stakeholder-specific quality themes. Results: Stakeholder concepts on how to assure quality throughout study conduct or articles on quality assessment tools were common, generally with no a priori definition of the term quality itself. We identified a total of 20 explicit definitions of clinical research quality including varying quality dimensions and focusing on different stages in the clinical research process. Encountered quality dimensions include ethical conduct, patient safety/rights/priorities, internal validity, precision of results, generalizability or external validity, scientific and societal relevance, transparency and accessibility of information, research infrastructure and sustainability. None of the definitions appeared to be comprehensive either in terms of quality dimensions, research stages, or stakeholder perspectives. Conclusion: Clinical research quality is often discussed but rarely defined. A framework defining clinical research quality across stakeholders’ individual perspectives is desirable to facilitate discussion, assessment, and improvement of quality at all stages of clinical research.

Suggested Citation

  • Belinda von Niederhäusern & Stefan Schandelmaier & Marie Mi Bonde & Nicole Brunner & Lars G Hemkens & Marielle Rutquist & Neera Bhatnagar & Gordon H Guyatt & Christiane Pauli-Magnus & Matthias Briel, 2017. "Towards the development of a comprehensive framework: Qualitative systematic survey of definitions of clinical research quality," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(7), pages 1-16, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0180635
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0180635
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0180635
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0180635&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0180635?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0180635. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.