ArticleTrials2018
Development of a standardised set of metrics for monitoring site performance in multicentre randomised trials: a Delphi study.
Article in Trials, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.
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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 60 citations in OpenAlex.
- The importance of methods for site performance evaluation in REPRIEVE, a longitudinal, global, multicenter trial.Contemporary clinical trials · 2023 · on this mapTrial
- Identifying and Deploying Benchmarks for Clinical Research at Sites.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2026Article
- Measuring What Matters in Trial Operations: Development and Validation of the Clinical Trial Site Performance Measure.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- A new trial monitoring plan (TMP) template for clinical trials: output from a Delphi process.Trials · 2024Article
- Harmonizing Quality Improvement Metrics Across Global Trial Networks to Advance Paediatric Clinical Trials Delivery.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2024Article
- Monitoring metrics over time: Why clinical trialists need to systematically collect site performance metrics.Research methods in medicine & health sciences · 2023Article
- Development of a risk-tailored approach and dashboard for efficient management and monitoring of investigator-initiated trials.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Review
- Multicentre oncology clinical trials in primary health care in Cuba: evaluation of programme implementation in Villa Clara Province, 2010-2020.BJGP open · 2022Article
- Value and engagement: what can clinical trials learn from techniques used in not-for-profit marketing?Trials · 2022Article
- Evaluating the Revised National Institutes of Health Clinical Trial Definition Impact on Recruitment Progress.Research Evaluation · 2022Article
- Article
- The Investigational Clinical Center: a clinical-supportive and patient-centered trial unit model. Ten years of experience through normal and pandemic times of a large pediatric trial center in Italy.Italian journal of pediatrics · 2021Article
- Dynamic methods for ongoing assessment of site-level risk in risk-based monitoring of clinical trials: A scoping review.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2021Article
- Recruitment and retention of participants in UK surgical trials: survey of key issues reported by trial staff.BJS open · 2020Article
- Article
- Article
- An evaluation of risk-based monitoring in pragmatic trials in UK Clinical Trials Units.Trials · 2019Article
- Using evidence when planning for trial recruitment: An international perspective from time-poor trialists.PloS one · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSite performance is key to the success of large multicentre randomised trials. A standardised set of clear and accessible summaries of site performance could facilitate the timely identification and resolution of potential problems, minimising their impact. The aim of this study was to identify and agree a core set of key performance metrics for managing multicentre randomised trials.
methodsWe used a mixed methods approach to identify potential metrics and to achieve consensus about the final set, adapting methods that are recommended by the COMET Initiative for developing core outcome sets in health care. We used performance metrics identified from our systematic search and focus groups to create an online Delphi survey. We invited respondents to score each metric for inclusion in the final core set, over three survey rounds. Metrics scored as critical by ≥70% and unimportant by <15% of respondents were taken forward to a consensus meeting of representatives from key UK-based stakeholders. Participants in the consensus meeting discussed and voted on each metric, using anonymous electronic voting. Metrics with >50% of participants voting for inclusion were retained.
resultsRound 1 of the Delphi survey presented 28 performance metrics, and a further six were added in round 2. Of 294 UK-based stakeholders who registered for the Delphi survey, 211 completed all three rounds. At the consensus meeting, 17 metrics were discussed and voted on: 15 metrics were retained following survey round 3, plus two others that were preferred by consensus meeting participants. Consensus was reached on a final core set of eight performance metrics in three domains: (1) recruitment and retention, (2) data quality and (3) protocol compliance. A simple tool for visual reporting of the metrics is available from the Nottingham Clinical Trials Unit website.
conclusionsWe have established a core set of metrics for measuring the performance of sites in multicentre randomised trials. These metrics could improve trial conduct by enabling researchers to identify and address problems before trials are adversely affected. Future work could evaluate the effectiveness of using the metrics and reporting tool.
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.