Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28213598›Full record

ReviewBMJ open2017

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

Kerry N L Avery, Paula R Williamson, Carrol Gamble, Elaine O'Connell Francischetto, Chris Metcalfe, Peter Davidson, Hywel Williams, Jane M Blazeby, members of the Internal Pilot Trials Workshop supported by the Hubs for Trials Methodology Research

4 registry-linked trialsAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 4 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 353 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
353citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT07103252 nanot yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

BOOST- Blood Flow Restriction Therapy to Optimize Muscle Size and Strength in Recovery From Lower Limb Orthopaedic Trauma

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of British ColumbiaRan2025 to 2027Enrolled20ConditionsTibial FractureArmsBlood Flow Restriction Therapy
NCT07104695 nanot yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Studying the Feasibility and Acceptability of the SOLOMIYA App - a Smartphone-Based Intervention for People Living Under Prolonged Stress Due to the Ongoing War in Ukraine

TypeinterventionalSponsorSolveig KemnaRan2026 to 2026Enrolled80ConditionsStress - Prevention of Sleep Disorders, PTSD and DepressionArmsSolomiya App - CBT-based self-help intervention
NCT07228663 phase3not yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Rivaroxaban Plus Acetylsalicylic Acid Versus Standard of Care for Arterial and Venous Cardiovascular Prevention After Hip Fracture Surgery in Patients With Myocardial Injury: a Pilot Randomized Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorMcMaster UniversityRan2025 to 2027Enrolled100ConditionsHip Fracture Surgery, Cardiovascular Prevention, Venous Thromboembolism (VTE)Armsrivaroxaban and ASA, Low-molecular weight heparin, Fondaparinux, Direct Oral Anticoagulant (DOAC)
NCT07722442 nanot yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Feasibility, Acceptability and Preliminary Efficacy of a Personalised Behavioural Intervention to Improve Adherence to Dietary and Lifestyle Cancer Prevention Recommendations in Adults Attending Breast and Colorectal Cancer Screening Programmes: A Three-Arm Randomised Pilot Trial (CANVIA)

TypeinterventionalSponsorFundació d'investigació Sanitària de les Illes BalearsRan2026 to 2028Enrolled162ConditionsDietary and Lifestyle Behaviour ChangeArmsPersonalised baseline feedback report, CANVIA mobile app intervention, Additional health professional support
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

353 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

293 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Kerry N L AveryMedical Research Council ConDuCT-II Hub for Trials Methodology Research, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5477-2418
Paula R WilliamsonMedical Research Council North West Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Department of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Carrol GambleMedical Research Council North West Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Department of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Elaine O'Connell FrancischettoMedical Research Council ConDuCT-II Hub for Trials Methodology Research, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Chris MetcalfeMedical Research Council ConDuCT-II Hub for Trials Methodology Research, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Peter DavidsonNational Institute for Health Research Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Hywel WilliamsCentre of Evidence-Based Dermatology, University of Nottingham, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK.
Jane M BlazebyMedical Research Council ConDuCT-II Hub for Trials Methodology Research, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
members of the Internal Pilot Trials Workshop supported by the Hubs for Trials Methodology Research

Funding

Department of Health DRF-2011-04-016Department of Health DRF-2012-05-182Medical Research Council G0901530Medical Research Council MR/K025635/1Medical Research Council MR/K025643/1Medical Research Council MR/L004933/1- R41Medical Research Council MR/L004933/2
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesDesigning 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.

designA 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.

resultsThere 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.

conclusionsSystematic 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.

Indexed as

Research DesignAttitudeClinical ProtocolsClinical Trials Data Monitoring CommitteesDecision MakingGuideline AdherenceHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CarePatient SelectionPilot ProjectsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch PersonnelResearch ReportSTATISTICS & RESEARCH METHODS

Identifiers

PMID28213598
PMCPMC5318608

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.