Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28283026›Full record

Trial reportTrials2017

Preventing recurrence of endometriosis by means of long-acting progestogen therapy (PRE-EMPT): report of an internal pilot, multi-arm, randomised controlled trial incorporating flexible entry design and adaption of design based on feasibility of recruitment.

Lee J Middleton, Jane P Daniels, Annalise Weckesser, Siladitya Bhattacharya, PRE-EMPT trial collaborative group

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Trials, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Lee J MiddletonBirmingham Clinical Trials Unit, Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK. l.j.middleton@bham.ac.uk.
Jane P DanielsBirmingham Clinical Trials Unit, Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
Annalise WeckesserCentre for Health and Social Care Research, Birmingham City University, Birmingham, B15 3TN, UK.
Siladitya BhattacharyaInstitute of Applied Health Sciences, School of Medicine and Dentistry, Aberdeen Maternity Hospital, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD, UK.
PRE-EMPT trial collaborative group
Birmingham City University · GBUniversity of Birmingham · GBAberdeen Maternity Hospital · GB

Funding

Department of Health 11/114/01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEndometriosis is associated with the growth of endometrium in ectopic sites mainly within the pelvis. This results in inflammation and scarring, causing pain and impaired quality of life. Endometriotic lesions can be excised or ablated surgically, but the risk of recurrence is high. A Heath Technology Assessment commissioning call in 2011 sought applications for trials aimed at evaluating long-term effectiveness of postoperative, long-acting, reversible contraceptives (LARCs) in preventing recurrence of endometriosis. A survey of gynaecologists indicated that there was no consensus about which LARC (Levonorgestrel Intrauterine System (LNG-IUS) or depot medroxyprogesterone acetate injection (DMPA)) or comparator (combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) or no treatment) should be evaluated. Hence, we designed a 'flexible-entry' internal pilot to assess whether a four-arm trial was feasible including a possible design adaption based on pilot findings.

methodsIn this pilot, women could be randomised to two, three or four treatment options provided that one was a LARC and one was a non-LARC. An assessment of feasibility based on recruitment to these options and a revised substantive trial design was considered by an independent oversight committee.

resultsThe study ran for 1 year from April 2014 and 77 women were randomised. Only 5 (6%) women accepted randomisation to all groups, with 63 (82%) having a LARC preference and 55 (71%) a non-LARC preference. Four-way and three-way designs were ruled out with a two-way LARC versus COCP design, stratified by prerandomisation choice of LARC and optional subrandomisation to LNG-IUS versus DMPA considered a feasible substantive study.

conclusionsMulti-arm studies are potentially efficient as they can answer multiple questions simultaneously but are difficult to recruit to if there are strong patient or clinician preferences. A flexible approach to randomisation in a pilot phase can be used to assess feasibility of such studies and modify a trial design based on chosen recruitment options, but trialists should consider carefully any practical arrangements should groups need to be dropped during a study.

trial registrationInternational Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number, ISRCTN97865475 . Registered on 20 March 2014.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultClinical ProtocolsContraceptives, Oral, HormonalDelayed-Action PreparationsEndometriosisFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansInjectionsIntrauterine DevicesLaparoscopyLevonorgestrelMedroxyprogesterone AcetateMiddle AgedPatient SelectionContraceptives, Oral, HormonalDelayed-Action PreparationsLevonorgestrelMedroxyprogesterone AcetateProgestinsAdaptationEndometriosisFlexibleInternal pilotLARCMulti-armMulti-stageRandomised trial

Identifiers

PMID28283026
PMCPMC5346193
OpenAlexW2594628125

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.