ArticleTrials2015
Making randomised trials more efficient: report of the first meeting to discuss the Trial Forge platform.
Article in Trials, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
49 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Impact of patient and public involvement on enrolment and retention in clinical trials: systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2018Pooled it
- Missing data in randomized controlled trials testing palliative interventions pose a significant risk of bias and loss of power: a systematic review and meta-analyses.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2016Pooled it
- Can a Public and Patient Involvement (PPI) Informed Participant Information Leaflet (PIL) Improve Trial Recruitment, Retention, and Quality of Decision Making? Results of a Randomised Controlled Double-Blind Study Within a Trial (SWAT).Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Trial
- Trial
- The effect of personalised versus non-personalised study invitations on recruitment within the ENGAGE feasibility trial: an embedded randomised controlled recruitment trial.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Trial
- Trial
- Automated recruitment and randomisation for an efficient randomised controlled trial in primary care.Trials · 2018Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- Generating evidence using electronic alerts during routine care: a fully automated randomized controlled trial of oral fluid restriction in acute heart failure (THIRST alert trial).European heart journal. Digital health · 2026Article
- Reframing clinical research frameworks: Case for a shift from a biomedical to a biopsychosocial one.The Indian journal of medical research · 2026Article
- Identifying Social factors that Stratify Health Opportunities and Outcomes (ISSHOOs) in pain research: consensus recommendations for the collection and reporting of equity-relevant data.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Article
- Training Africans to Lead and Execute Neurological Trials and Studies (TALENTS): program overview and rationale.Equity neuroscience · 2025Article
- Using routine primary care data in research: (in)efficient case studies and perspectives from the Asthma UK Centre for Applied Research.BMJ health & care informatics · 2025Article
- Facilitators and barriers to the delivery of the PARAMEDIC2 trial.Resuscitation plus · 2024Article
- Undertaking Studies Within A Trial to evaluate recruitment and retention strategies for randomised controlled trials: lessons learnt from the PROMETHEUS research programme.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2024Article
- Making implementation science more efficient: capitalizing on opportunities beyond the field.Implementation science : IS · 2023Article
- Article
- Conducting Digital Health Care Research: Document Analysis of Challenges Experienced During Intervention Development and Feasibility Study Setup of an Internet-Administered Intervention for Parents of Children Treated for Cancer.JMIR formative research · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
31 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Randomised trials are at the heart of evidence-based healthcare, but the methods and infrastructure for conducting these sometimes complex studies are largely evidence free. Trial Forge ( www.trialforge.org ) is an initiative that aims to increase the evidence base for trial decision making and, in doing so, to improve trial efficiency.This paper summarises a one-day workshop held in Edinburgh on 10 July 2014 to discuss Trial Forge and how to advance this initiative. We first outline the problem of inefficiency in randomised trials and go on to describe Trial Forge. We present participants' views on the processes in the life of a randomised trial that should be covered by Trial Forge.General support existed at the workshop for the Trial Forge approach to increase the evidence base for making randomised trial decisions and for improving trial efficiency. Agreed upon key processes included choosing the right research question; logistical planning for delivery, training of staff, recruitment, and retention; data management and dissemination; and close down. The process of linking to existing initiatives where possible was considered crucial. Trial Forge will not be a guideline or a checklist but a 'go to' website for research on randomised trials methods, with a linked programme of applied methodology research, coupled to an effective evidence-dissemination process. Moreover, it will support an informal network of interested trialists who meet virtually (online) and occasionally in person to build capacity and knowledge in the design and conduct of efficient randomised trials.Some of the resources invested in randomised trials are wasted because of limited evidence upon which to base many aspects of design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of clinical trials. Trial Forge will help to address this lack of evidence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.