Visual aggregate analysis of eligibility features of clinical trials

OBJECTIVE To develop a method for profiling the collective populations targeted for recruitment by multiple clinical studies addressing the same medical condition using one eligibility feature each time. METHODS Using a previously published database COMPACT as the backend, we designed a scalable method for visual aggregate analysis of clinical trial eligibility features. This method consists of four modules for eligibility feature frequency analysis, query builder, distribution analysis, and visualization, respectively. This method is capable of analyzing (1) frequently used qualitative and quantitative features for recruiting subjects for a selected medical condition, (2) distribution of study enrollment on consecutive value points or value intervals of each quantitative feature, and (3) distribution of studies on the boundary values, permissible value ranges, and value range widths of each feature. All analysis results were visualized using Google Charts API. Five recruited potential users assessed the usefulness of this method for identifying common patterns in any selected eligibility feature for clinical trial participant selection. RESULTS We implemented this method as a Web-based analytical system called VITTA (Visual Analysis Tool of Clinical Study Target Populations). We illustrated the functionality of VITTA using two sample queries involving quantitative features BMI and HbA1c for conditions "hypertension" and "Type 2 diabetes", respectively. The recruited potential users rated the user-perceived usefulness of VITTA with an average score of 86.4/100. CONCLUSIONS We contributed a novel aggregate analysis method to enable the interrogation of common patterns in quantitative eligibility criteria and the collective target populations of multiple related clinical studies. A larger-scale study is warranted to formally assess the usefulness of VITTA among clinical investigators and sponsors in various therapeutic areas.

[1]  Chunhua Weng,et al.  Corpus-based Approach to Creating a Semantic Lexicon for Clinical Research Eligibility Criteria from UMLS , 2010, Summit on translational bioinformatics.

[2]  George Hripcsak,et al.  A collaborative approach to developing an electronic health record phenotyping algorithm for drug-induced liver injury. , 2013, Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA.

[3]  Riccardo Miotto,et al.  Unsupervised mining of frequent tags for clinical eligibility text indexing , 2013, J. Biomed. Informatics.

[4]  Mohit Bhandari,et al.  Lack of diversity in orthopaedic trials conducted in the United States. , 2014, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[5]  Riccardo Miotto,et al.  A Method for Probing Disease Relatedness Using Common Clinical Eligibility Criteria , 2013, MedInfo.

[6]  W. Elliott.  US Trends in Prevalence, Awareness, Treatment, and Control of Hypertension, 1988-2008 , 2011 .

[7]  A. Ferro,et al.  Statins and vascular protection: a 'radical' view. , 2002, Journal of hypertension.

[8]  Mark Olfson,et al.  Generalizability of clinical trials for cannabis dependence to community samples. , 2008, Drug and alcohol dependence.

[9]  D. Warburton,et al.  The relationship between hypertension and obesity across different ethnicities , 2012, Journal of hypertension.

[10]  Elizabeth L. Ogburn,et al.  Generalizability of clinical trial results for major depression to community samples: results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. , 2008, The Journal of clinical psychiatry.

[11]  Tianyong Hao,et al.  Extracting and Normalizing Temporal Expressions in Clinical Data Requests from Researchers , 2013, ICSH.

[12]  Mark Zimmerman,et al.  Exclusion Criteria Used in Antidepressant Efficacy Trials: Consistency Across Studies and Representativeness of Samples Included , 2004, The Journal of nervous and mental disease.

[13]  Karen Chiswell,et al.  The State of Infectious Diseases Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review of ClinicalTrials.gov , 2013, PloS one.

[14]  Chunhua Weng,et al.  Formal representation of eligibility criteria: A literature review , 2010, J. Biomed. Informatics.

[15]  S. Tu,et al.  Analysis of Eligibility Criteria Complexity in Clinical Trials , 2010, Summit on translational bioinformatics.

[16]  Keith Humphreys,et al.  Representativeness of patients enrolled in influential clinical trials: a comparison of substance dependence with other medical disorders. , 2013, Journal of studies on alcohol and drugs.

[17]  David Gotz,et al.  Interactive Intervention Analysis , 2012, AMIA.

[18]  L. Schneider,et al.  Eligibility of Alzheimer's Disease Clinic Patients for Clinical Trials , 1997, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.

[19]  Philip T. Kortum,et al.  Determining what individual SUS scores mean: adding an adjective rating scale , 2009 .

[20]  Ricardo Pietrobon,et al.  The Database for Aggregate Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov (AACT) and Subsequent Regrouping by Clinical Specialty , 2012, PloS one.

[21]  S. Jamieson.  Likert scales: how to (ab)use them , 2004, Medical education.

[22]  Michael N. Cantor,et al.  Analysis of eligibility criteria representation in industry-standard clinical trial protocols , 2013, J. Biomed. Informatics.

[23]  Chunhua Weng,et al.  EliXR-TIME: A Temporal Knowledge Representation for Clinical Research Eligibility Criteria , 2012, AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science.

[24]  F. Collins,et al.  Sharing and reporting the results of clinical trials. , 2015, JAMA.

[25]  Tianyong Hao,et al.  Clustering clinical trials with similar eligibility criteria features , 2014, J. Biomed. Informatics.

[26]  Chunhua Weng,et al.  Dynamic categorization of clinical research eligibility criteria by hierarchical clustering , 2011, J. Biomed. Informatics.

[27]  Riccardo Miotto,et al.  A human-computer collaborative approach to identifying common data elements in clinical trial eligibility criteria , 2013, J. Biomed. Informatics.

[28]  Olivier Bodenreider,et al.  The Unified Medical Language System (UMLS): integrating biomedical terminology , 2004, Nucleic Acids Res..

[29]  G Hripcsak,et al.  A Distribution-based Method for Assessing The Differences between Clinical Trial Target Populations and Patient Populations in Electronic Health Records , 2014, Applied Clinical Informatics.

[30]  B. Shiner,et al.  Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria in Randomized Controlled Trials of Psychotherapy for PTSD , 2014, Journal of psychiatric practice.

[31]  Jorge A. Gálvez,et al.  A Review of Analytics and Clinical Informatics in Health Care , 2014, Journal of Medical Systems.

[32]  Gerhard F Hamann.  Early ischemic signs should not be used as exclusion criteria in thrombolysis trials. , 2004, Stroke.

[33]  Xiaoying Wu,et al.  EliXR: an approach to eligibility criteria extraction and representation , 2011, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[34]  Riccardo Miotto,et al.  eTACTS: A method for dynamically filtering clinical trial search results , 2013, J. Biomed. Informatics.

[35]  Tianyong Hao,et al.  A Method for Analyzing Commonalities in Clinical Trial Target Populations , 2014, AMIA.

[36]  Fei Wang,et al.  A methodology for interactive mining and visual analysis of clinical event patterns using electronic health record data , 2014, J. Biomed. Informatics.

[37]  J. B. Brooke,et al.  SUS: A 'Quick and Dirty' Usability Scale , 1996 .

[38]  Nascif A. Abousalh-Neto,et al.  Big data exploration through visual analytics , 2012, IEEE VAST.

[39]  A. Tasneem,et al.  Are current clinical trials in diabetes addressing important issues in diabetes care? , 2013, Diabetologia.

[40]  W. A. Gool,et al.  The age gap between patients in clinical studies and in the general population: a pitfall for dementia research , 2004, The Lancet Neurology.

[41]  Torsten Hoppe-Tichy,et al.  Patients enrolled in randomised clinical trials are not representative of critically ill patients in clinical practice: observational study focus on tigecycline. , 2013, International journal of antimicrobial agents.

[42]  Yann Le Strat,et al.  Generalizability of clinical trial results for bipolar disorder to community samples: findings from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. , 2013, The Journal of clinical psychiatry.

[43]  M. Boland,et al.  Feasibility of Feature-based Indexing, Clustering, and Search of Clinical Trials , 2013, Methods of Information in Medicine.

[44]  Johannes J M van Delden,et al.  Justification of exclusion criteria was underreported in a review of cardiovascular trials. , 2014, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[45]  Frank van Harmelen,et al.  Building a Library of Eligibility Criteria to Support Design of Clinical Trials , 2012, EKAW.

[46]  Yann Le Strat,et al.  Prevalence of Subthreshold Hypomania and Impact on Internal Validity of RCTs for Major Depressive Disorder: Results from a National Epidemiological Sample , 2013, PloS one.

[47]  Chunhua Weng,et al.  Semi-Automatically Inducing Semantic Classes of Clinical Research Eligibility Criteria Using UMLS and Hierarchical Clustering. , 2010, AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium.

[48]  Maria I. Rodriguez,et al.  The safety, efficacy and acceptability of task sharing tubal sterilization to midlevel providers: a systematic review. , 2014, Contraception.

[49]  Yann Le Strat,et al.  Are subjects in treatment trials of panic disorder representative of patients in routine clinical practice? Results from a national sample. , 2013, Journal of affective disorders.

[50]  Amy P Abernethy,et al.  Characteristics of oncology clinical trials: insights from a systematic analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov. , 2013, JAMA internal medicine.

[51]  Chunhua Weng,et al.  Trend and Network Analysis of Common Eligibility Features for Cancer Trials in ClinicalTrials.gov , 2014, ICSH.

[52]  Chunhua Weng,et al.  Extracting temporal constraints from clinical research eligibility criteria using conditional random fields. , 2011, AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium.

[53]  Ori Rogowski,et al.  Blood pressure level and hypertension awareness and control differ by marital status, sex, and ethnicity: a population-based study. , 2014, American journal of hypertension.