Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32571382›Full record

ArticleTrials2020

Defining key design elements of registry-based randomised controlled trials: a scoping review.

Bill Karanatsios, Khic-Houy Prang, Ebony Verbunt, Justin M Yeung, Margaret Kelaher, Peter Gibbs

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. End Point Selection in ADPKD Clinical Trials.Kidney international reports · 2025
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  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

6 authors.

Bill KaranatsiosDepartment of Surgery, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia. Bill.Karanatsios@wh.org.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0681-5986
Khic-Houy PrangCentre for Health Policy, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Ebony VerbuntCentre for Health Policy, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Justin M YeungDepartment of Surgery, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Margaret KelaherCentre for Health Policy, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Peter GibbsSystems Biology and Personalised Medicine Division, The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Parkville, VIC, Australia.

Funding

NA NA
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTraditional randomised controlled trials remain the gold standard for improving clinical care but they do have their limitations, including their associated high costs, high failure rate and limited external validity. An alternative methodology is the newly defined, prospective, registry-based randomised controlled trial (RRCT), where treatment and outcome data is collected in an existing registry. This scoping review explores the current literature regarding RRCTs to help identify the key design elements of RRCTs and the characteristics of clinical registries on which they are reliant on.

methodsA scoping review methodology conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines was performed. Four databases were searched for articles published from inception to June 2018: Medline; Embase; the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and; Scopus. The search strategy included MeSH and text words related to RRCT.

resultsWe identified 2369 articles of which 75 were selected for full-text screening. Of these, only 17 articles satisfied our inclusion criteria. All studies were published between 1996 and 2017 and all were investigator-initiated. Study designs were mainly multi-site comparative/effectiveness studies incorporating the use of disease registries (n = 8), procedure registries (n = 8) and a health services registry (n = 1). The low cost, reduced administrative burden and enhanced external validity of RRCTs make them an attractive research methodology which can be used to address questions of public health importance. We identified that that there are variable definitions of what constituted a RRCT and that issues related to ethical conduct and data integrity, completeness, timeliness, validation and endpoint adjudication need to be carefully addressed.

conclusionRRCTs potentially have an important role to play in informing best clinical practice and health policy. There are a number of issues that need to be addressed to optimise the utility of this approach, including establishing universally accepted criteria for the definition of a RRCT.

Indexed as

Pragmatic Clinical Trials as TopicRegistriesResearch DesignHumansMulticenter Studies as TopicProspective StudiesPragmatic trialsReal-world evidenceRegistryRegistry trials

Identifiers

PMID32571382
PMCPMC7310018

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.