Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31174597›Full record

ArticleTrials2019

Synthesizing existing evidence to design future trials: survey of methodologists from European institutions.

Adriani Nikolakopoulou, Sven Trelle, Alex J Sutton, Matthias Egger, Georgia Salanti

Abstract read
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 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Adriani NikolakopoulouInstitute of Social and Preventive Medicine (ISPM), University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. nikolakopoulou.adriani@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5884-4319
Sven TrelleCTU Bern, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Alex J SuttonDepartment of Health Sciences, College of Medicine, Biological Sciences and Psychology, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Matthias EggerInstitute of Social and Preventive Medicine (ISPM), University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Georgia SalantiInstitute of Social and Preventive Medicine (ISPM), University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.

Funding

H2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions 703254Swiss National Science Foundation 174281Swiss National Science Foundation 179158
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background'Conditional trial design' is a framework for efficiently planning new clinical trials based on a network of relevant existing trials. The framework considers whether new trials are required and how the existing evidence can be used to answer the research question and plan future research. The potential of this approach has not been fully realized.

methodsWe conducted an online survey among trial statisticians, methodologists, and users of evidence synthesis research using referral sampling to capture opinions about the conditional trial design framework and current practices among clinical researchers. The questions included in the survey were related to the decision of whether a meta-analysis answers the research question, the optimal way to synthesize available evidence, which relates to the acceptability of network meta-analysis, and the use of evidence synthesis in the planning of new studies.

resultsIn total, 76 researchers completed the survey. Two out of three survey participants (65%) were willing to possibly or definitely consider using evidence synthesis to design a future clinical trial and around half of the participants would give priority to such a trial design. The median rating of the frequency of using such a trial design was 0.41 on a scale from 0 (never) to 1 (always). Major barriers to adopting conditional trial design include the current regulatory paradigm and the policies of funding agencies and sponsors.

conclusionsParticipants reported moderate interest in using evidence synthesis methods in the design of future trials. They indicated that a major paradigm shift is required before the use of network meta-analysis is regularly employed in the design of trials.

Indexed as

Research DesignClinical Trials as TopicData Interpretation, StatisticalEffect Modifier, EpidemiologicEuropeEvidence-Based MedicineHumansModels, StatisticalNetwork Meta-Analysis as TopicSample SizeSurveys and QuestionnairesConditional trial designMeta-analysisNetwork of interventionsSample size

Identifiers

PMID31174597
PMCPMC6555919

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.