Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31399148›Full record

ArticleTrials2019

Progression criteria in trials with an internal pilot: an audit of publicly funded randomised controlled trials.

Esther Herbert, Steven A Julious, Steve Goodacre

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
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 45 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors.

Esther HerbertSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Regent Court, Regent Street, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK. e.herbert@sheffield.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1224-5457
Steven A JuliousSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Regent Court, Regent Street, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK.
Steve GoodacreSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Regent Court, Regent Street, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK.

Funding

National Institute for Health Research NIHR-RMFI-2016-07-25
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWith millions of pounds spent annually on medical research in the UK, it is important that studies are spending funds wisely. Internal pilots offer the chance to stop a trial early if it becomes apparent that the study will not be able to recruit enough patients to show whether an intervention is clinically effective. This study aims to assess the use of internal pilots in individually randomised controlled trials funded by the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme and to summarise the progression criteria chosen in these trials.

methodsStudies were identified from reports of the HTA committees' funding decisions from 2012 to 2016. In total, 242 trials were identified of which 134 were eligible to be included in the audit. Protocols for the eligible studies were located on the NIHR Journals website, and if protocols were not available online then study managers were contacted to provide information.

resultsOver two-thirds (72.4%) of studies said in their protocol that they would include an internal pilot phase for their study and 37.8% of studies without an internal pilot had done an external pilot study to assess the feasibility of the full study. A typical study with an internal pilot has a target sample size of 510 over 24 months and aims to recruit one-fifth of their total target sample size within the first one-third of their recruitment time. There has been an increase in studies adopting a three-tiered structure for their progression rules in recent years, with 61.5% (16/26) of studies using the system in 2016 compared to just 11.8% (2/17) in 2015. There was also a rise in the number of studies giving a target recruitment rate in their progression criteria: 42.3% (11/26) in 2016 compared to 35.3% (6/17) in 2015.

conclusionsProgression criteria for an internal pilot are usually well specified but targets vary widely. For the actual criteria, red/amber/green systems have increased in popularity in recent years. Trials should justify the targets they have set, especially where targets are low.

Indexed as

Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicHumansMedical AuditPilot ProjectsTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalAuditFeasibilityInternal pilotRecruitment

Identifiers

PMID31399148
PMCPMC6688224

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.