Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30782209›Full record

ArticleTrials2019

SWATted away: the challenging experience of setting up a programme of SWATs in paediatric trials.

Jacqueline Martin-Kerry, Adwoa Parker, Peter Bower, Ian Watt, Shaun Treweek, David Torgerson, Catherine Arundel, Peter Knapp

Abstract readLetter
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

8 authors.

Jacqueline Martin-KerryDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, Heslington, York, YO10 5DD, UK. jackie.martin-kerry@york.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9299-1360
Adwoa ParkerDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, Heslington, York, YO10 5DD, UK.
Peter BowerMRC North West Hub for Trials Methodology Research, NIHR School for Primary Care Research, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Ian WattDepartment of Health Sciences and the Hull York Medical School, University of York, Heslington, York, YO10 5DD, UK.
Shaun TreweekHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD, UK.
David TorgersonDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, Heslington, York, YO10 5DD, UK.
Catherine ArundelDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, Heslington, York, YO10 5DD, UK.
Peter KnappDepartment of Health Sciences and the Hull York Medical School, University of York, Heslington, York, YO10 5DD, UK.

Funding

Chief Scientist Office HSRU1Department of Health HS&DR/14/21/21Health Services and Delivery Research Programme 14/21/21
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRandomised controlled trials are considered the best method for determining the effectiveness and safety of health interventions. Trials involving children are essential to ensure that treatments are safe and effective. However, many trials, in both adult and paediatric populations, do not achieve recruitment targets and/or maintain retention of participants, which can lead to a reduction in the internal and external validity of the results. Identifying ways of improving trial efficiency are important in order to increase the successful completion of trials. MAIN BODY: A 'Study Within A Trial' (SWAT) is a self-contained study embedded within an ongoing trial, which aims to establish evidence to improve the management and delivery of trials in healthcare. Increasing numbers of SWATs have been undertaken in recent years yet very few within paediatric trials. Herein, we describe some of the challenges with undertaking a programme of SWATs within paediatric clinical trials in the UK. The TRECA (TRials Engagement in Children and Adolescents) study involves developing multimedia websites for use within paediatric trials to provide recruitment information to children, young people and their families about the clinical trial. Challenges encountered included governance issues such as host trial approval processes and sharing of anonymised data, funding issues for host trials, internet quality and accessibility within the healthcare setting, and ethical concerns associated with SWAT methodology. We believe the ethical concerns are more pronounced in the paediatric setting, perhaps because of the fewer SWATs undertaken in these settings or that a more cautious, risk-averse approach to undertaking research with children is taken.

conclusionSWATs are becoming increasingly common to provide an evidence base for methods to improve trial efficiency. However, we encountered a number of unanticipated challenges to embedding TRECA that have not been previously reported within the scientific literature. We believe that, if these issues were addressed through wider promotion and explanation of undertaking SWATs involving all key stakeholders, as well as by exploration of alternative funding models for SWATs, this would enable more streamlined, appropriate and timely processes for SWATs and a stronger evidence base for what works to increase trial efficiency.

trial registrationThe TRECA study is registered on ISRCTN, ID 73136092 . Registered on 24 August 2016.

Indexed as

Research DesignAdolescentAge FactorsChildData AccuracyHumansPatient SelectionRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicReproducibility of ResultsResearch Subjectschallengesembedded trialsgovernancemethodologypaediatricsrandomised controlled trials‘SStudy Within A Trial’ (SWAT)

Identifiers

PMID30782209
PMCPMC6381684

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.