Can starting and ending clinical trials with Systematic Reviews truly be feasible? It hasn’t been—until now!
In the world of clinical research, systematic reviews are essential for ensuring that trials are well-informed, ethically sound, and impactful. Yet, a recent study by Clarke et al. uncovered a concerning trend: out of 175 randomized controlled trial (RCT) reports published over 25 years in five top-tier medical journals, only 2.9% referenced up-to-date systematic reviews in their Introduction sections. Even more alarming, just 3.4% incorporated their findings into an updated systematic review in the Discussion sections.
The Problem: Research Gaps That Could Cost Lives
These numbers are not just disappointing—they’re dangerous. Without systematic reviews, clinical trials risk:
- 👉 Poorly designed protocols that fail to build on existing knowledge.
- 👉 Lack of clinical equipoise, leading to ethical concerns.
- 👉 Research waste due to duplicative or irrelevant studies.
- 👉 Unnecessary risk to patients involved in poorly informed trials.
- 👉 Limited dissemination of valuable results that could inform future research.
The Reality: Systematic Reviews Are Time-Consuming and Resource-Intensive
It’s easy to say that systematic reviews should be integrated into every stage of a clinical trial, but the reality is far from simple. The average systematic review takes 2,500 person-hours and several expert reviewers to complete. Considering that each clinical trial would require at least two systematic reviews, you’re looking at an additional 5,000 person-hours—a significant strain on already limited resources.
The Solution: Loon Hatch™ – Automating Systematic Reviews for the Future of Clinical Research
This is where Loon Hatch™ comes in. At Loon, we’ve developed a groundbreaking tool that automates the systematic review process, making it possible to maintain living systematic reviews—rapidly and effortlessly.
With Loon Hatch™, the once daunting task of integrating systematic reviews into clinical trials becomes a seamless part of the research process. Imagine being able to:
- Inform your sample size calculation with a living systematic review? ✅ Check.
- Ethically inform on the choice of comparators? ✅ Check.
- Ensure endpoint relevancy with up-to-date data? ✅ Check.
- Assess the psychometric properties of PROs efficiently? ✅ Check.
And when it comes to updating existing systematic reviews with new trial results? With Loon Hatch™, it’s as simple as publishing your findings. Our tool automatically updates your living systematic review, ensuring that your research remains at the cutting edge.
The Future is Now: Join Us in Advancing Evidence-Informed Research
AI-enabled technologies like Loon Hatch™ are transforming the future of clinical research, making it possible and practical to integrate systematic reviews at every stage of a clinical trial. This isn’t just a step forward, towards a more ethical, efficient, and impactful research process.
Let’s connect and explore how we can push the boundaries of evidence-informed research together. The future of clinical research is truly exciting, and with tools like Loon Hatch™, we’re just getting started.
FAQs
Why are systematic reviews important in clinical trials?
Systematic reviews are crucial in clinical trials because they ensure that the trials are well-informed, ethically sound, and impactful. They help in designing protocols that build on existing knowledge, maintaining clinical equipoise, avoiding research waste, and reducing unnecessary risks to patients.
What are the risks of not using systematic reviews in clinical trials?
Without systematic reviews, clinical trials risk poorly designed protocols, lack of clinical equipoise, research waste due to duplicative or irrelevant studies, unnecessary risk to patients, and limited dissemination of valuable results that could inform future research.
Why haven’t systematic reviews been widely integrated into clinical trials until now?
Systematic reviews are traditionally time-consuming and resource-intensive, requiring an average of 2,500 person-hours and multiple expert reviewers to complete. Given that each clinical trial would need at least two systematic reviews, the process has been seen as a significant strain on resources.
How does Loon Hatch™ address the challenges of integrating systematic reviews into clinical trials?
Loon Hatch™ automates the systematic review process, making it feasible to maintain living systematic reviews throughout the clinical trial process. This automation allows for seamless integration of systematic reviews, informing various aspects of the trial such as sample size calculations, choice of comparators, endpoint relevancy, and updating existing reviews with new trial results.
What makes Loon Hatch™ different from traditional systematic review processes?
Loon Hatch™ significantly reduces the time and effort required to perform systematic reviews by automating the process. This enables researchers to maintain up-to-date, living systematic reviews, ensuring that their research is always informed by the latest data, without the resource strain associated with traditional methods.
How can Loon Hatch™ impact the future of clinical research?
By automating systematic reviews, Loon Hatch™ enables a more ethical, efficient, and impactful research process. It allows for real-time integration of systematic reviews at every stage of a clinical trial, helping to advance evidence-informed research and improve the overall quality and reliability of clinical trials.