Advertisement

Defining the Study Cohort: Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

  • Emily Z. Keung
  • Lisa M. McElroy
  • Daniela P. Ladner
  • Elizabeth G. GrubbsEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Success in Academic Surgery book series (SIAS)

Abstract

A study cohort is a group of individuals with common characteristics who are initially defined, composed and then examined or tracked over a given time period. In a clinical trial, outlining the study cohort begins with clearly defined, study-specific eligibility criteria. Inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria together determine who is eligible to participate in the study. These selection or eligibility criteria are determined during the planning phase of the study, with the study goals of the clinical trial in mind. Establishing eligibility criteria primarily requires the precise definition of the primary and secondary study outcomes, which provides guidance for the sample size of the clinical trial that is required to detect a significant difference between the study intervention and control group. The eligibility criteria should be sufficiently narrow to ensure internal study validity, but sufficiently broad to allow for generalizability of the study results to the general population. In addition, eligibility criteria must be chosen carefully to allow for the feasible recruitment of study subjects into the clinical trial and must meet ethical criteria established by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Keywords

Belmont Report CONSORT Criteria Eligibility Exclusion Inclusion Patient selection 

References

  1. 1.
    ClinicalTrials.gov. Learn about clinical studies. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/about-studies/learn. Accessed 25 July 2019.
  2. 2.
    Underwood RT. Basic design considerations. In: Chow S-C, Liu J-P, editors. Design and analysis of clinical trials: concepts and methodologies. 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 2014. p. 85–115.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kim ES, Bernstein D, Hilsenbeck SG, et al. Modernizing eligibility criteria for molecularly driven trials. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(25):2815–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Van Spall HGC, Toren A, Kiss A, Fowler RA. Eligibility criteria of randomized controlled trials published in high-impact general medical journals: a systematic sampling review. JAMA. 2007;297(11):1233–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brody T. Inclusion/exclusion criteria, stratification, and subgroups—part I. In: Brody T, editor. Clinical trials. 2nd ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2016. p. 83–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chin RY, Lee BY. Patient selection and sampling: key components of clinical trials and programs. In: Principles and practice of clinical trial medicine. Boston: Academic; 2008.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nottage M, Siu LL. Principles of clinical trial design. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20(18 Suppl):42S–6S.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Szklo M. Population-based cohort studies. Epidemiol Rev. 1998;20(1):81–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ellimoottil C, Vijan S, Flanigan RC. A primer on clinical trial design. Urol Oncol Semin Orig Investig. 2015;33(3):116–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stock E, Biswas K. Sample size calculation. In: Itani KMF, Reda D, editors. Clinical trials design in operative and non operative invasive procedures. New York: Springer International Publishing; 2017. p. 141–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pocock SJ, Clayton TC, Stone GW. Design of major randomized trials: part 3 of a 4-part series on statistics for clinical trials. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;66(24):2757–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Browner W, Newman T, Cummings S, Hulley S. Estimating sample size and power. In: Hulley S, Cummings S, Browner W, Grady D, Hearst N, Newman T, editors. Designing clinical research: an epidemiologic approach. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2001. p. 65–84.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schulz KF, Grimes DA. Sample size calculations in randomised trials: mandatory and mystical. Lancet. 2005;365(9467):1348–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kirby A, Gebski V, Keech AC. Determining the sample size in a clinical trial. Med J Aust. 2002;177(5):256–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Caldwell PHY, Hamilton S, Tan A, Craig JC. Strategies for increasing recruitment to randomised controlled trials: systematic review. PLoS Med. 2010;7(11):e1000368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Treweek S, Pitkethly M, Cook J, et al. Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;2(2):MR000013.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Itani KMF, Reda DJ. Clinical trials design in operative and nonoperative invasive procedures. Clin Trials Des Oper Non Oper Invasive Proced. 2017;112:1–495.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Beaver JA, Ison G, Pazdur R. Reevaluating eligibility criteria—balancing patient protection and participation in oncology trials. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(16):1504–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont Report. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/#. Published 1979. Accessed 25 July 2019.
  20. 20.
    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National Institutes of Health. NIH policy and guidelines on the inclusion of women and minorities as participants in research involving human subjects. https://grants.nih.gov/policy/inclusion/women-and-minorities.htm. Accessed 25 July 2019.
  21. 21.
    National Institutes of Health. Guidelines for the review of inclusion on the basis of sex/gender, race, ethnicity, and age in clinical research. https://grants.nih.gov/grants/peer/guidelines_general/Review_Human_subjects_Inclusion.pdf. Accessed 25 July 2019.
  22. 22.
    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National Institutes of Health. NIH policy and guidelines on the inclusion of individuals across the lifespan as participants in research involving human subjects. https://grants.nih.gov/policy/inclusion/lifespan.htm. Accessed 25 July 2019.
  23. 23.
    Jin S, Pazdur R, Sridhara R. Re-evaluating eligibility criteria for oncology clinical trials: analysis of investigational newdrug applications in 2015. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(33):3745–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Penel N, Lebellec L, Vanseymortier M. Reappraisal of eligibility criteria in cancer clinical trials. Curr Opin Oncol. 2018;30(5):352–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lichtman SM, Harvey RD, Damiette Smit M-A, et al. Modernizing clinical trial eligibility criteria: recommendations of the American Society of Clinical Oncology-Friends of Cancer research organ dysfunction, prior or concurrent malignancy, and Comorbidities Working Group. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(33):3753–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gore L, Ivy SP, Balis FM, et al. Modernizing clinical trial eligibility: recommendations of the American Society of Clinical Oncology-friends of Cancer research minimum age working group. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(33):3781–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Uldrick TS, Ison G, Rudek MA, et al. Modernizing clinical trial eligibility criteria: recommendations of the American Society of Clinical Oncology-friends of Cancer research HIV working group. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(33):3774–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lin NU, Prowell T, Tan AR, et al. Modernizing clinical trial eligibility criteria: recommendations of the American Society of Clinical Oncology-friends of Cancer research brain metastases working group. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(33):3760–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman D. CONSORT group (consolidated standards of reporting trials). The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. JAMA. 2001;285(15):1987–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. JAMA. 1996;276(8):637–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    The CONSORT statement. http://www.consort-statement.org/. Accessed 25 July 2019.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emily Z. Keung
    • 1
  • Lisa M. McElroy
    • 2
  • Daniela P. Ladner
    • 3
    • 4
  • Elizabeth G. Grubbs
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Surgical OncologyThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonUSA
  2. 2.Section of Transplant Surgery, Department of SurgeryUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  3. 3.Division of Transplantation, Department of SurgeryNorthwestern University Transplant Outcomes Research Collaborative (NUTORC)ChicagoUSA
  4. 4.Department of Surgery, Feinberg School of MedicineNorthwestern UniversityChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations