Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2022 | Systemic Lupus Erythematosus | Review

Outcome selection for tissue-agnostic drug trials for immune-mediated inflammatory diseases: a systematic review of core outcome sets and regulatory guidance

Authors: Olalekan Lee Aiyegbusi, Lavinia Ferrante di Ruffano, Ameeta Retzer, Philip N. Newsome, Christopher D. Buckley, Melanie J. Calvert

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2022

Abstract

Background

Tissue-agnostic drug development provides a paradigm shift in precision medicine and requires innovative trial designs. However, outcome selection for such trials can prove challenging. The objectives of this review were to:

(i)

Identify and map core outcome sets (COS), across 11 immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) in order to facilitate the selection of relevant outcomes across the conditions for innovative trials of tissue-agnostic drug therapies.

(ii)

Compare outcomes or endpoints recommended by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) to identify and highlight similarities and differences.

Methods

The Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET), International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM), FDA and EMA databases were searched from inception to 28th December 2019. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts of retrieved entries and conducted the subsequent full text screening. Hand searching of the reference lists and citation searching of the selected publications was conducted. The methodological quality of the included peer-reviewed articles was independently assessed by the reviewers based on the items of the COS–Standards for Development recommendations (COS–STAD) checklist. Core outcomes from the included publications were extracted and mapped across studies and conditions. Regulatory guidance from FDA and EMA, where available for clinical trials for the IMIDs, were obtained from their databases and recommendations on outcomes to measure directly compared.

Results

Forty-four COS publications were included in the final analysis. Outcomes such as disease activity, pain, fatigue, quality of life, physical function, work limitation/productivity, steroid use and biomarkers were recommended across majority of the conditions. There were significant similarities and differences in FDA and EMA recommendations. The only instance where either regulatory body directly referenced a COS was for jSLE—both referenced the Paediatric Rheumatology International Trials Organization (PRINTO) COS.

Conclusions

The findings from this systematic review provide valuable information to inform outcome selection in tissue-agnostic trials for IMIDs. There is a need for increased collaboration between regulators and COS developers and inclusion of regulators as key stakeholders in COS development to enhance the quality of COS.

Trial registration

Not registered.

Available only for authorised users

El-Gabalawy H, Guenther LC, Bernstein CN. Epidemiology of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases: incidence, prevalence, natural history, and comorbidities. J rheumatol. 2010;85:2.

Croft AP, Campos J, Jansen K, Turner JD, Marshall J, Attar M, et al. Distinct fibroblast subsets drive inflammation and damage in arthritis. Nature. 2019;570(7760):246–51.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Baker KF, Isaacs JD. Novel therapies for immune-mediated inflammatory diseases: what can we learn from their use in rheumatoid arthritis, spondyloarthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, psoriasis, Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77(2):175–87. https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2017-211555.CrossRefPubMed

Flaherty KT, Le DT, Lemery S. Tissue-agnostic drug development. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book Am Soc Clin Oncol Meet. 2017;37(37):222–30. https://doi.org/10.1200/EDBK_173855.CrossRef

Dugger SA, Platt A, Goldstein DB. Drug development in the era of precision medicine. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2017;17(3):183–96. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd.2017.226.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Lemery S, Keegan P, Pazdur R. First FDA approval agnostic of cancer site - when a biomarker defines the indication. New Engl J Med. 2017;377(15):1409–12. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1709968.CrossRefPubMed

EMA. Vitrakvi: European Medicines Agency; 2019. Available from: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/EPAR/vitrakvi. Accessed 30 Jan 2020.

Freidlin B, Korn EL. Biomarker-adaptive clinical trial designs. Pharmacogenomics. 2010;11(12):1679–82. https://doi.org/10.2217/pgs.10.153.CrossRefPubMed

Redig AJ, Jänne PA. Basket trials and the evolution of clinical trial design in an era of genomic medicine. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(9):975–7. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2014.59.8433.CrossRefPubMed

10.

West H. Novel precision medicine trial designs: umbrellas and baskets. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3(3):423.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Ornes S. Core concept: basket trial approach capitalizes on the molecular mechanisms of tumors. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2016;113(26):7007–8. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1608277113.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Park JJH, Siden E, Zoratti MJ, Dron L, Harari O, Singer J, et al. Systematic review of basket trials, umbrella trials, and platform trials: a landscape analysis of master protocols. Trials. 2019;20(1):572. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-019-3664-1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Curtis L, Hernandez A, Weinfurt K. Choosing and specifying endpoints and outcomes: introduction. Bethesda, MD. NIH Health Care Syst Res Collab. Available from: https://rethinkingclinicaltrials.org/chapters/design/choosing-specifying-end-points-outcomes/choosing-and-specifying-endpoints-and-outcomes-introduction/.

14.

Williamson PR, Altman DG, Bagley H, Barnes KL, Blazeby JM, Brookes ST, et al. The COMET Handbook: version 1.0. Trials. 2017;18(3):280.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Tunis SR, Clarke M, Gorst SL, Gargon E, Blazeby JM, Altman DG, et al. Improving the relevance and consistency of outcomes in comparative effectiveness research. J Comp Eff Res. 2016;5(2):193–205. https://doi.org/10.2217/cer-2015-0007.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2009;339:b2700.CrossRef

17.

Search the COMET database. COMET Initiative. Available from: http://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/search.

18.

Guidance, Compliance & Regulatory Information (Biologics). US Food and Drug Administration. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents. Accessed 28 Dec 2019.

19.

European Medicines Agency. Clinical efficacy and safety guidelines. Eur Med Agency. Available from: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/research-development/scientific-guidelines/clinical-efficacy-safety/clinical-efficacy-safety-rheumatologymusculoskeletal-system. Accessed 28 Dec 2019.

20.

Kirkham JJ, Gorst S, Altman DG, Blazeby JM, Clarke M, Devane D, et al. Core Outcome Set–STAndards for Reporting: The COS-STAR Statement. PLoS Med. 2016;13(10):e1002148. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002148.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

EMA. Guideline on the Clinical Investigation of Medicinal Products for the Treatment of Axial Spondyloarthritis. European Medicines Agency. 2017. Available from: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/guideline-clinical-investigation-medicinal-products-treatment-axial-spondyloarthritis-revision-1_en.pdf. Accessed 10 Jan 2020.

22.

van der Heijde D, Bellamy N, Calin A, Dougados M, Khan MA, van der Linden S. Preliminary core sets for endpoints in ankylosing spondylitis. Assessments in Ankylosing Spondylitis Working Group. J Rheumatol. 1997;24(11):2225–9.PubMed

23.

van der Heijde D, Calin A, Dougados M, Khan MA, van der Linden S, Bellamy N. Selection of instruments in the core set for DC-ART, SMARD, physical therapy, and clinical record keeping in ankylosing spondylitis. Progress report of the ASAS Working Group. Assessments in Ankylosing Spondylitis. J Rheumatol. 1999;26(4):951–4.PubMed

24.

Zochling J, Sieper J, van der Heijde D, Braun J. Development of a core set of domains for data collection in cohorts of patients with ankylosing spondylitis receiving anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha therapy. J Rheumatol. 2008;35(6):1079–82.PubMed

25.

Danese S, Bonovas S, Lopez A, Fiorino G, Sandborn WJ, Rubin DT, et al. Identification of endpoints for development of antifibrosis drugs for treatment of Crohn’s disease. Gastroenterology. 2018;155(1):76–87. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2018.03.032.CrossRefPubMed

26.

EMA. Guideline on the development of new medicinal products for the treatment of Crohn’s Disease. European Medicines Agency, 2018. Document number: CPMP/EWP/2284/99 Rev. 2. Available at: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/guideline-development-new-medicinal-products-treatment-crohns-disease-revision-2_en.pdf. Accessed 10 Jan 2020.

27.

Griffiths AM, Otley AR, Hyams J, Quiros AR, Grand RJ, Bousvaros A, et al. A review of activity indices and end points for clinical trials in children with Crohn's disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2005;11(2):185–96. https://doi.org/10.1097/00054725-200502000-00013.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Sahnan K, Tozer PJ, Adegbola SO, Lee MJ, Heywood N, McNair AGK, et al. Developing a core outcome set for fistulising perianal Crohn’s disease. Gut. 2019;68(2):226–38. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2017-315503.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Sandborn WJ, Feagan BG, Hanauer SB, Lochs H, Löfberg R, Modigliani R, et al. A review of activity indices and efficacy endpoints for clinical trials of medical therapy in adults with Crohn's disease. Gastroenterology. 2002;122(2):512–30. https://doi.org/10.1053/gast.2002.31072.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Kim AH, Roberts C, Feagan BG, Banerjee R, Bemelman W, Bodger K, et al. Developing a standard set of patient-centred outcomes for inflammatory bowel disease-an international, cross-disciplinary consensus. J Crohn’s Colitis. 2018;12(4):408–18. https://doi.org/10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjx161.CrossRef

31.

Ruemmele FM, Hyams JS, Otley A, Griffiths A, Kolho K-L, Dias JA, et al. Outcome measures for clinical trials in paediatric IBD: an evidence-based, expert-driven practical statement paper of the paediatric ECCO committee. Gut. 2015;64(3):438–46. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2014-307008.CrossRefPubMed

32.

Guideline on clinical investigation of medicinal products for the treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis, (2015).

33.

Giannini EH, Ruperto N, Ravelli A, Lovell DJ, Felson DT, Martini A. Preliminary definition of improvement in juvenile arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 1997;40(7):1202–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/1529-0131(199707)40:7<1202::AID-ART3>3.0.CO;2-R.

34.

Guideline on clinical investigation of medicinal products for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis, (2006).

35.

Gladman DD. Consensus exercise on domains in psoriatic arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2005(64 Suppl 2):ii113–4.

36.

Gladman DD, Mease PJ, Healy P, Helliwell PS, Fitzgerald O, Cauli A, et al. Outcome measures in psoriatic arthritis. J Rheumatol. 2007;34(5):1159–66.PubMed

37.

Gladman DD, Mease PJ, Strand V, Healy P, Helliwell PS, Fitzgerald O, et al. Consensus on a core set of domains for psoriatic arthritis. J Rheumatol. 2007;34(5):1167–70.PubMed

38.

Orbai AM, de Wit M, Mease PJ, Callis Duffin K, Elmamoun M, Tillett W, et al. Updating the Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA) Core Domain Set: a report from the PsA Workshop at OMERACT 2016. J Rheumatol. 2017;44(10):1522–8. https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.160904.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

39.

Orbai AM, de Wit M, Mease P, Shea JA, Gossec L, Leung YY, et al. International patient and physician consensus on a psoriatic arthritis core outcome set for clinical trials. Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;76(4):673–80. https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-210242.CrossRefPubMed

40.

Taylor WJ. Preliminary identification of core domains for outcome studies in psoriatic arthritis using Delphi methods. Ann Rheum Dis. 2005;64(Suppl 2):ii110–2.PubMedPubMedCentral

41.

Tillett W, Eder L, Goel N, De Wit M, Gladman DD, FitzGerald O, et al. Enhanced Patient Involvement and the Need to Revise the Core Set - Report from the Psoriatic Arthritis Working Group at OMERACT 2014. J Rheumatol. 2015;42(11):2198–203. https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.141156.CrossRefPubMed

42.

Aletaha D, Landewe R, Karonitsch T, Bathon J, Boers M, Bombardier C, et al. Reporting disease activity in clinical trials of patients with rheumatoid arthritis: EULAR/ACR collaborative recommendations. Ann Rheum Dis. 2008;67(10):1360–4. https://doi.org/10.1136/ard.2008.091454.CrossRefPubMed

43.

EMA. Guideline on clinical investigation of medicinal products for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. European Medicines Agency. 2017. Document number: CPMP/EWP/556/95 Rev. 2. Available at: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/guideline-clinical-investigation-medicinal-products-treatment-rheumatoid-arthritis_en.pdf. Accessed 10 Feb 2020.

44.

FDA. Guidance for Industry Rheumatoid Arthritis: Developing Drug Products for Treatment - Draft guidance. US Food and Drugs Administration, 2013. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/media/86066/download. Accessed 10 Jan 2020.

45.

Felson DT, Anderson JJ, Boers M, Bombardier C, Chernoff M, Fried B, et al. The American College of Rheumatology preliminary core set of disease activity measures for rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials. The Committee on Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials. Arthritis Rheum. 1993;36(6):729–40. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.1780360601.CrossRefPubMed

46.

Felson DT, Anderson JJ, Boers M, Bombardier C, Furst D, Goldsmith C, et al. American College of Rheumatology. Preliminary definition of improvement in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 1995;38(6):727–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.1780380602.CrossRefPubMed

47.

ICHOM. ICHOM Standard Set for Inflammatory Arthritis. 2018. International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement. Available from: https://ichom.org/files/medical-conditions/inflammatory-arthritis/inflammatory-arthritis-reference-guide.pdf. Accessed 14 Jan 2020.

48.

Kirwan JR, Minnock P, Adebajo A, Bresnihan B, Choy E, de Wit M, et al. Patient perspective: fatigue as a recommended patient centered outcome measure in rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol. 2007;34(5):1174–7.PubMed

49.

Nikiphorou E, Mackie SL, Kirwan J, Boers M, Isaacs J, Morgan AW, et al. Achieving consensus on minimum data items (including core outcome domains) for a longitudinal observational cohort study in rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology. 2017;56(4):550–5. https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/kew416.CrossRefPubMed

50.

Radner H, Chatzidionysiou K, Nikiphorou E, Gossec L, Hyrich KL, Zabalan C, et al. 2017 EULAR recommendations for a core data set to support observational research and clinical care in rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77(4):476–9. https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2017-212256.CrossRefPubMed

51.

Tugwell P, Boers M. Developing consensus on preliminary core efficacy endpoints for rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials. OMERACT Comm J Rheumatol. 1993;20(3):555–6.

52.

EMA. Guideline on clinical investigation of medicinal products for the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus and lupus nephritis. European Medicines Agency, 2015. Document number: EMA/CHMP/51230/2013 corr1. Available from: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/guideline-clinical-investigation-medicinal-products-treatment-systemic-lupus-erythematosus-lupus_en.pdf. Accessed 12 Jan 2020.

53.

FDA. Guidance for Industry Systemic Lupus Erythematosus - Developing Medical Products for Treatment. US Food and Drugs Administration. 2010. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/media/71150/download. Accessed 08 Jan 2020.

54.

Gordon C, Bertsias G, Ioannidis JP, Boletis J, Bombardieri S, Cervera R, et al. EULAR points to consider for conducting clinical trials in systemic lupus erythematosus. Ann Rheum Dis. 2009;68(4):470–6. https://doi.org/10.1136/ard.2007.083022.CrossRefPubMed

55.

Liang MH, Schur P, Fortin P, St. Clair E W, E Balow J, Costenbader K, et al. The American College of Rheumatology response criteria for proliferative and membranous renal disease in systemic lupus erythematosus clinical trials. Arthritis Rheum. 2006;54(2):421–32. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.21625.CrossRef

56.

Smolen JS, Strand V, Cardiel M, Edworthy S, Furst D, Gladman D, et al. Randomized clinical trials and longitudinal observational studies in systemic lupus erythematosus: consensus on a preliminary core set of outcome domains. J Rheumatol. 1999;26(2):504–7.PubMed

57.

Strand V, Gladman D, Isenberg D, Petri M, Smolen J, Tugwell P. Endpoints: consensus recommendations from OMERACT IV. Lupus. 2000;9(5):322–7. https://doi.org/10.1191/096120300678828424.CrossRefPubMed

58.

Ruperto N, for the Paediatric Rheumatology International Trials O, the Pediatric Rheumatology Collaborative Study Group b, Ravelli A, for the Paediatric Rheumatology International Trials O, the Pediatric Rheumatology Collaborative Study Group b, et al. Preliminary core sets of measures for disease activity and damage assessment in juvenile systemic lupus erythematosus and juvenile dermatomyositis. Rheumatology. 2003;42(12):1452–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/keg403.CrossRefPubMed

59.

Ruperto N, Ravelli A, Oliveira S, Alessio M, Mihaylova D, Pasic S, et al. The Pediatric Rheumatology International Trials Organization/American College of Rheumatology provisional criteria for the evaluation of response to therapy in juvenile systemic lupus erythematosus: prospective validation of the definition of improvement. Arthritis Rheum. 2006;55(3):355–63. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.22002.CrossRefPubMed

60.

Bowman SJ, Pillemer S, Jonsson R, Asmussen K, Vitali C, Manthorpe R, et al. Revisiting Sjogren’s syndrome in the new millennium: perspectives on assessment and outcome measures. Report of a workshop held on 23 March 2000 at Oxford, UK. Rheumatol (Oxford). 2001;40(10):1180–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/40.10.1180.CrossRef

61.

Pillemer SR, Smith J, Fox PC, Bowman SJ. Outcome measures for Sjogren’s syndrome, April 10-11, 2003, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. J Rheumatol. 2005;32(1):143–9.PubMed

62.

EMA. Guideline on the development of new medicinal products for the treatment of Ulcerative Colitis. European Medicines Agency, 2018. Document number: CHMP/EWP/18463/2006 Rev.1. Available from: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/guideline-development-new-medicinal-products-treatment-ulcerative-colitis-revision-1_en.pdf. Accessed 10 Jan 2020.

63.

Colitis U. Clinical Trial Endpoints Guidance for Industry - Draft guidance; 2016.

64.

Heiligenhaus A, Foeldvari I, Edelsten C, Smith JR, Saurenmann RK, Bodaghi B, et al. Proposed outcome measures for prospective clinical trials in juvenile idiopathic arthritis-associated uveitis: a consensus effort from the multinational interdisciplinary working group for uveitis in childhood. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2012;64(9):1365–72. https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.21674.CrossRefPubMed

65.

FDA. Guidance for Industry Rheumatoid Arthritis: Developing Drug Products for Treatment - Draft guidance. US Food and Drugs Administration. 2013. Document number: Revision 1. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/media/86066/download. Accessed 08 Jan 2020.

66.

EMA. Guideline on clinical investigation of medicinal products for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. 2017. Document number: CPMP/EWP/556/95 Rev. 2. Available from: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/guideline-clinical-investigation-medicinal-products-treatment-rheumatoid-arthritis_en.pdf. Accessed 04 Feb 2020.

67.

68.

FDA. Guidance for Industry Systemic Lupus Erythematosus - Developing Medical Products for Treatment. US Food and Drugs Administration, 2010. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/media/71150/download. Accessed 08 Jan 2020.

69.

70.

FDA. Ulcerative Colitis: Clinical Trial Endpoints Guidance for Industry - Draft guidance. US Food and Drugs Administration, 2016. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/media/99526/download. Accessed 20 Jan 2020.

71.

US Government. 21st Century Cures Act. 114th Congress of the United States of America. Document number: HR 34. 2016. Available from: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-114hr34enr/pdf/BILLS-114hr34enr.pdf. Accessed 14 Jan 2020.

72.

Kluetz PG, O'Connor DJ, Soltys K. Incorporating the patient experience into regulatory decision making in the USA, Europe, and Canada. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(5):e267–e74. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30097-4.CrossRefPubMed

73.

Mavris M, Furia Helms A, Bere N. Engaging patients in medicines regulation: a tale of two agencies. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2019;18(12):885–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41573-019-00164-y.CrossRefPubMed

74.

Calvert MJ, O'Connor DJ, Basch EM. Harnessing the patient voice in real-world evidence: the essential role of patient-reported outcomes. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2019;18(10):731–2. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41573-019-00088-7.CrossRefPubMed

Title: Outcome selection for tissue-agnostic drug trials for immune-mediated inflammatory diseases: a systematic review of core outcome sets and regulatory guidance
Authors: Olalekan Lee Aiyegbusi
Lavinia Ferrante di Ruffano
Ameeta Retzer
Philip N. Newsome
Christopher D. Buckley
Melanie J. Calvert
Publication date: 01-12-2022
Publisher: BioMed Central
Keywords: Systemic Lupus Erythematosus
Ulcerative Colitis
Psoriatic Arthritis
Rheumatoid Arthritis
Published in: Trials / Issue 1/2022
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-022-06000-w

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Outcome selection for tissue-agnostic drug trials for immune-mediated inflammatory diseases: a systematic review of core outcome sets and regulatory guidance

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Trial registration

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Trial registration

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2022

HORNBILL: a phase I/IIa trial examining the safety, tolerability and early response of BI 764524 in patients with diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular ischaemia—rationale, study design and protocol

Effects of a smartphone app-augmented treatment for children with oppositional defiant disorder / conduct disorder and peer-related aggressive behavior – a pilot study

The effect of mHealth-based exercise on Insulin Sensitivity for patients with Hepatocellular carcinoma and insulin resistance (mISH): protocol of a randomized controlled trial

Increasing Children’s physical Activity by Policy (CAP) in preschools within the Stockholm region: study protocol for a pragmatic cluster-randomized controlled trial

Effect of pulsed electromagnetic field as an intervention for patients with quadriceps weakness after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a double-blinded, randomized-controlled trial

The effect of osteotomy technique (flat-cut vs wedge-cut Weil) on pain relief and complication incidence following surgical treatment for metatarsalgia in a private metropolitan clinic: protocol for a randomised controlled trial