62
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Informing efficient randomised controlled trials: exploration of challenges in developing progression criteria for internal pilot studies

      research-article
      1 , 2 , 2 , 1 , 1 , 3 , 4 , 1 , 5
      (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab)
      BMJ Open
      BMJ Publishing Group
      STATISTICS & RESEARCH METHODS

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives

          Designing studies with an internal pilot phase may optimise the use of pilot work to inform more efficient randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Careful selection of preagreed decision or ‘progression’ criteria at the juncture between the internal pilot and main trial phases provides a valuable opportunity to evaluate the likely success of the main trial and optimise its design or, if necessary, to make the decision not to proceed with the main trial. Guidance on the appropriate selection and application of progression criteria is, however, lacking. This paper outlines the key issues to consider in the optimal development and review of operational progression criteria for RCTs with an internal pilot phase.

          Design

          A structured literature review and exploration of stakeholders' opinions at a Medical Research Council (MRC) Hubs for Trials Methodology Research workshop. Key stakeholders included triallists, methodologists, statisticians and funders.

          Results

          There is considerable variation in the use of progression criteria for RCTs with an internal pilot phase, although 3 common issues predominate: trial recruitment, protocol adherence and outcome data. Detailed and systematic reporting around the decision-making process for stopping, amending or proceeding to a main trial is uncommon, which may hamper understanding in the research community about the appropriate and optimal use of RCTs with an internal pilot phase. 10 top tips for the development, use and reporting of progression criteria for internal pilot studies are presented.

          Conclusions

          Systematic and transparent reporting of the design, results and evaluation of internal pilot trials in the literature should be encouraged in order to facilitate understanding in the research community and to inform future trials.

          Related collections

          Most cited references17

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Defining Feasibility and Pilot Studies in Preparation for Randomised Controlled Trials: Development of a Conceptual Framework

          We describe a framework for defining pilot and feasibility studies focusing on studies conducted in preparation for a randomised controlled trial. To develop the framework, we undertook a Delphi survey; ran an open meeting at a trial methodology conference; conducted a review of definitions outside the health research context; consulted experts at an international consensus meeting; and reviewed 27 empirical pilot or feasibility studies. We initially adopted mutually exclusive definitions of pilot and feasibility studies. However, some Delphi survey respondents and the majority of open meeting attendees disagreed with the idea of mutually exclusive definitions. Their viewpoint was supported by definitions outside the health research context, the use of the terms ‘pilot’ and ‘feasibility’ in the literature, and participants at the international consensus meeting. In our framework, pilot studies are a subset of feasibility studies, rather than the two being mutually exclusive. A feasibility study asks whether something can be done, should we proceed with it, and if so, how. A pilot study asks the same questions but also has a specific design feature: in a pilot study a future study, or part of a future study, is conducted on a smaller scale. We suggest that to facilitate their identification, these studies should be clearly identified using the terms ‘feasibility’ or ‘pilot’ as appropriate. This should include feasibility studies that are largely qualitative; we found these difficult to identify in electronic searches because researchers rarely used the term ‘feasibility’ in the title or abstract of such studies. Investigators should also report appropriate objectives and methods related to feasibility; and give clear confirmation that their study is in preparation for a future randomised controlled trial designed to assess the effect of an intervention.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Design and analysis of pilot studies: recommendations for good practice.

            Pilot studies play an important role in health research, but they can be misused, mistreated and misrepresented. In this paper we focus on pilot studies that are used specifically to plan a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Citing examples from the literature, we provide a methodological framework in which to work, and discuss reasons why a pilot study might be undertaken. A well-conducted pilot study, giving a clear list of aims and objectives within a formal framework will encourage methodological rigour, ensure that the work is scientifically valid and publishable, and will lead to higher quality RCTs. It will also safeguard against pilot studies being conducted simply because of small numbers of available patients.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Interventions to improve recruitment and retention in clinical trials: a survey and workshop to assess current practice and future priorities

              Background Despite significant investment in infrastructure many trials continue to face challenges in recruitment and retention. We argue that insufficient focus has been placed on the development and testing of recruitment and retention interventions. Methods In this current paper, we summarize existing reviews about interventions to improve recruitment and retention. We report survey data from Clinical Trials Units in the United Kingdom to indicate the range of interventions used by these units to encourage recruitment and retention. We present the views of participants in a recent workshop and a priority list of recruitment interventions for evaluation (determined by voting among workshop participants). We also discuss wider issues concerning the testing of recruitment interventions. Results Methods used to encourage recruitment and retention were categorized as: patient contact, patient convenience, support for recruiters, monitoring and systems, incentives, design, resources, and human factors. Interventions felt to merit investigation by respondents fell into three categories: training site staff, communication with patients, and incentives. Conclusions Significant resources continue to be invested into clinical trials and other high quality studies, but recruitment remains a significant challenge. Adoption of innovative methods to develop, test, and implement recruitment interventions are required. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1745-6215-15-399) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2017
                17 February 2017
                : 7
                : 2
                : e013537
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Medical Research Council ConDuCT-II Hub for Trials Methodology Research, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol , Bristol, UK
                [2 ]Medical Research Council North West Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Department of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool , Liverpool, UK
                [3 ]National Institute for Health Research Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, University of Southampton , Southampton, UK
                [4 ]Centre of Evidence-Based Dermatology, University of Nottingham , Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust , Nottingham, UK
                [5 ]Division of Surgery, Head and Neck, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust , Bristol, UK
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Kerry NL Avery; kerry.avery@ 123456bristol.ac.uk
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5477-2418
                Article
                bmjopen-2016-013537
                10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013537
                5318608
                28213598
                029addaf-faf5-4c50-8d8c-35ae1bbeee82
                Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                History
                : 19 July 2016
                : 19 December 2016
                : 19 January 2017
                Categories
                Health Services Research
                Research
                1506
                1704
                1730

                Medicine
                statistics & research methods
                Medicine
                statistics & research methods

                Comments

                Comment on this article