Teletrials, the new norm? Expert recommendations for teletrials into the future: Findings from the Clinical Oncology Society of Australia Clinical Trial Research Professionals Group Workshop.

INTRODUCTION: The Australasian Teletrial Model was piloted in co-funded sites across Australia. The purpose was to extend the reach of clinical trials using telemedicine to improve equity and access to this treatment pathway for oncology patients. Experts across Australia gathered to share the learnings of implementation so that future directions can be effective and sustainable. METHODS: The 1-day workshop was attended in person and virtually. Attendees were invited to analyze and disseminate the results. Recordings from the presentations were coded independently by three researchers and synthesized. The results were sent to the authorship team for further review to build consensus on the findings in three drafts. RESULTS: Four key themes were identified: "Being on the Same Page," "Building Foundations," "Key Roles in Teletrials," and "Incentives." Although there were many successes that were accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, there is work still to be done. CONCLUSION: The Australasian Teletrial Model has been identified as acceptable and feasible. Future directions need to continue to work on streamlining regulatory processes, implementation and monitoring, and build knowledge to further build networks across Australia.

Empty reviews: a description and consideration of Cochrane systematic reviews with no included studies.

BACKGROUND: There is no specific guidance for the reporting of Cochrane systematic reviews that do not have studies eligible for inclusion. As a result, the reporting of these so-called "empty reviews" may vary across reviews. This research explores the incidence of empty systematic reviews in The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (The CDSR) and describes their current characteristics. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Empty reviews within The CDSR as of 15 August 2010 were identified, extracted, and coded for analysis. Review group, original publication year, and time since last update, as well as number of studies listed as excluded, awaiting assessment, or on-going within empty reviews were examined. 376 (8.7%) active reviews in The CDSR reported no included studies. At the time of data collection, 45 (84.9%) of the Cochrane Collaboration's 53 Review Groups sustained at least one empty review, with the number of empty reviews for each of these 45 groups ranging from 1 to 35 (2.2-26.9%). Time since original publication of empty reviews ranged from 0 to 15 years with a mean of 4.2 years (SD = 3.4). Time since last assessed as up-to-date ranged from 0 to 12 years with a mean of 2.8 years (SD = 2.2). The number of excluded studies reported in these reviews ranged from 0 to 124, with an average of 9.6 per review (SD = 14.5). Eighty-eight (23.4%) empty reviews reported no excluded studies, studies awaiting assessment, or on-going studies. CONCLUSIONS: There is a substantial number of empty reviews in The CDSR, and there is some variation in the reporting and updating of empty reviews across Cochrane Review Groups. This variation warrants further analysis, and may indicate a need to develop guidance for the reporting of empty systematic reviews in The CDSR.