Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29475444›Full record

ArticleTrials2018

Trial Forge Guidance 1: what is a Study Within A Trial (SWAT)?

Shaun Treweek, Simon Bevan, Peter Bower, Marion Campbell, Jacquie Christie, Mike Clarke, Clive Collett, Seonaidh Cotton, Declan Devane, Adel El Feky and 14 more

Abstract readLetter
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 170 papers, 21 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
170citing papers in PubMed, 21 pooled it
–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.

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

170 citing papers in PubMed, 21 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Guideline
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Monitoring strategies for clinical intervention studies.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

110 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

24 authors.

Shaun TreweekHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK. streweek@mac.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7239-7241
Simon BevanNational Institute for Health Research Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Peter BowerCentre for Primary Care, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Marion CampbellHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Jacquie ChristieGSK Medicines Research Centre, Stevenage, UK.
Mike ClarkeNorthern Ireland Network for Trials Methodology Research, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
Clive CollettHealth Research Authority, London, UK.
Seonaidh CottonHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Declan DevaneHRB-Trials Methodology Research Network, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland.
Adel El FekyHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Ella FlemyngBioMed Central, London, UK.
Sandra GalvinHRB-Trials Methodology Research Network, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland.
Heidi GardnerHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Katie GilliesHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Jan JansenDivision of Acute Care Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Roberta LittlefordTayside Clinical Trials Unit, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK.
Adwoa ParkerYork Trials Unit, University of York, York, UK.
Craig RamsayHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Lynne Restrup, Aberdeen, UK.
Frank SullivanSchool of Medicine, St Andrews University, St Andrews, UK.
David TorgersonYork Trials Unit, University of York, York, UK.
Liz TremainNational Institute for Health Research Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Matthew WestmoreNational Institute for Health Research Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Paula R WilliamsonMRC North West Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Department of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.

Funding

Chief Scientist Office HSRU1Medical Research Council G0901530Medical Research Council G1002325Medical Research Council MR/L004933/1Medical Research Council MR/L004933/2
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Randomised trials are a central component of all evidence-informed health care systems and the evidence coming from them helps to support health care users, health professionals and others to make more informed decisions about treatment. The evidence available to trialists to support decisions on design, conduct and reporting of randomised trials is, however, sparse. Trial Forge is an initiative that aims to increase the evidence base for trial decision-making and in doing so, to improve trial efficiency.One way to fill gaps in evidence is to run Studies Within A Trial, or SWATs. This guidance document provides a brief definition of SWATs, an explanation of why they are important and some practical 'top tips' that come from existing experience of doing SWATs. We hope the guidance will be useful to trialists, methodologists, funders, approvals agencies and others in making clear what a SWAT is, as well as what is involved in doing one.

Indexed as

Clinical Decision-MakingEvidence-Based MedicineHumansPractice Guidelines as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch Design

Identifiers

PMID29475444
PMCPMC5824570

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.