Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 28, 2025

An R-Based Landscape Validation of a Competing Risk Model
Published on: September 16, 2022
A maturity model for the scientific review of clinical trial designs and their informativeness
S Dolley1, T Norman2, D McNair2
1Open Global Health, 710 12th St South, Ste 2523, Arlington, VA, 22202, USA. shawn@openglobalhealth.org.
Background:
Informativeness, in the context of clinical trials, defines whether a study's results definitively answer its research questions with meaningful next steps. Many clinical trials end uninformatively. Clinical trial protocols are required to go through reviews in regulatory and ethical domains: areas that focus on specifics outside of trial design, biostatistics, and research methods. Private foundations and government funders rarely require focused scientific design reviews for these areas. There are no documented standards and processes, or even best practices, toward a capability for funders to perform scientific design reviews after their peer review process prior to a funding commitment.
Main Body:
Considering the investment in and standardization of ethical and regulatory reviews, and the prevalence of studies never finishing or failing to provide definitive results, it may be that scientific reviews of trial designs with a focus on informativeness offer the best chance for improved outcomes and return-on-investment in clinical trials. A maturity model is a helpful tool for knowledge transfer to help grow capabilities in a new area or for those looking to perform a self-assessment in an existing area. Such a model is offered for scientific design reviews of clinical trial protocols. This maturity model includes 11 process areas and 5 maturity levels. Each of the 55 process area levels is populated with descriptions on a continuum toward an optimal state to improve trial protocols in the areas of risk of failure or uninformativeness.
Conclusion:
This tool allows for prescriptive guidance on next investments to improve attributes of post-funding reviews of trials, with a focus on informativeness. Traditional pre-funding peer review has limited capacity for trial design review, especially for detailed biostatistical and methodological review. Select non-industry funders have begun to explore or invest in post-funding review programs of grantee protocols, based on exemplars of such programs. Funders with a desire to meet fiduciary responsibilities and mission goals can use the described model to enhance efforts supporting trial participant commitment and faster cures.
Insights
Many clinical trials are uninformative. A new maturity model offers a framework for scientific design reviews to improve clinical trial outcomes and funding return-on-investment.
Area of Science:
- Clinical trial methodology and biostatistics.
- Research design and protocol development.
Background:
- Many clinical trials conclude without providing definitive answers, leading to uninformative results.
- Current regulatory and ethical reviews for clinical trial protocols do not adequately address scientific design, biostatistics, or methodology.
- A gap exists in documented standards for funders to conduct scientific design reviews post-peer review and pre-funding.
Discussion:
- Scientific reviews of clinical trial designs focused on informativeness may improve outcomes and return-on-investment.
- A maturity model can facilitate knowledge transfer and self-assessment for scientific design reviews.
- The proposed model assesses 11 process areas across 5 maturity levels to enhance trial protocols.
Key Insights:
- A maturity model is presented for scientific design reviews of clinical trial protocols.
- The model aims to reduce the risk of trial failure and uninformativeness.
- It provides prescriptive guidance for improving post-funding review attributes.
Outlook:
- Enhancing trial informativeness can improve participant commitment and accelerate cures.
- The model supports funders in meeting fiduciary responsibilities and mission goals.
- It complements traditional pre-funding peer review by offering detailed methodological assessment.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Clinical Trials
There are four phases in a clinical trial. A phase one...
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
Assumptions of Survival Analysis
Study Design in Statistics
Does aspirin reduce the risk of heart attacks? Is one brand of fertilizer more effective at growing roses than another? Is fatigue as dangerous to a driver as the influence of alcohol? Questions like these are answered using randomized experiments with proper...
Study Designs in Epidemiology
Observational studies are those where the researcher does not intervene but rather observes natural variations. They include cross-sectional, cohort, and...
Regression Toward the Mean

