ReviewThe British journal of surgery2019
Value of surgical pilot and feasibility study protocols.
Review in The British journal of surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- How do pilot and feasibility studies inform randomised placebo-controlled trials in surgery? A systematic review.BMJ open · 2023Pooled it
- Trial
- Progression from external pilot to definitive randomised controlled trial: a methodological review of progression criteria reporting.BMJ open · 2021Trial
- Article
- Minimally invasive pedicle screw placement with image-guided navigation in cervical spine injuries.Acta neurochirurgica · 2025Article
- Article
- AMPDECIDE amputation level patient decision aids: a feasibility study.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Article
- Article
- REporting quality of PilOt randomised controlled trials in surgery (REPORTS): a methodological survey protocol.BMJ open · 2024Article
- Recommendations for optimising pilot and feasibility work in surgery.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2024Article
- Adaptive clinical trials in surgery: A scoping review of methodological and reporting quality.PloS one · 2024Article
- Methods of Recruitment for Surgical and Perioperative Randomized Controlled Trials: A Rapid Review.World journal of surgery · 2023Review
- Article
- The use of cognitive task analysis in clinical and health services research - a systematic review.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2022Review
- Are some feasibility studies more feasible than others? A review of the outcomes of feasibility studies on the ISRCTN registry.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2021Review
- Methodological quality for systematic reviews of adverse events with surgical interventions: a cross-sectional survey.BMC medical research methodology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRCTs in surgery are challenging owing to well established methodological issues. Well designed pilot and feasibility studies (PFS) may help overcome such issues to inform successful main trial design and conduct. This study aimed to analyse protocols of UK-funded studies to explore current use of PFS in surgery and identify areas for practice improvement.
methodsPFS of surgical interventions funded by UK National Institute for Health Research programmes from 2005 to 2015 were identified, and original study protocols and associated publications sourced. Data extracted included study design characteristics, reasons for performing the work including perceived uncertainties around conducting a definitive main trial, and whether the studies had been published.
resultsThirty-five surgical studies were identified, of which 29 were randomized, and over half (15 of 29) included additional methodological components (such as qualitative work examining recruitment, and participant surveys studying current interventions). Most studies focused on uncertainties around recruitment (32 of 35), with far fewer tackling uncertainties specific to surgery, such as intervention stability, implementation or delivery (10 of 35). Only half (19 of 35) had made their results available publicly, to date.
conclusionThe full potential of pretrial work to inform and optimize definitive surgical studies is not being realized.
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.