Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36759879›Full record

ArticlePilot and feasibility studies2023

Pilot and feasibility studies: extending the conceptual framework.

Christine Bond, Gillian A Lancaster, Mike Campbell, Claire Chan, Saskia Eddy, Sally Hopewell, Katie Mellor, Lehana Thabane, Sandra Eldridge

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pilot and feasibility studies, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 57 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing 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

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

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

9 authors.

Christine BondPrimary Care, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK. c.m.bond@abdn.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0429-5208
Gillian A LancasterKeele Clinical Trials Unit, School of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, UK.
Mike CampbellSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Claire ChanBarts and the London Pragmatic Clinical Trials Unit Centre for Evaluation and Methods Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Saskia EddyCentre for Evaluation & Methods, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Sally HopewellOxford Clinical Trials Research Unit/Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Katie MellorOxford Clinical Trials Research Unit/Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Lehana ThabaneHealth Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Sandra EldridgeCentre for Evaluation & Methods, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In 2016, we published a conceptual framework outlining the conclusions of our work in defining pilot and feasibility studies. Since then, the CONSORT extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials has been published and there have been further developments in the pilot study landscape. In this paper, we revisit and extend our framework to incorporate the various feasibility pathways open to researchers, which include internal pilot studies. We consider, with examples, when different approaches to feasibility and pilot studies are more effective and efficient, taking into account the pragmatic decisions that may need to be made. The ethical issues involved in pilot studies are discussed. We end with a consideration of the funders' perspective in making difficult resource decisions to include feasibility work and the policy implications of these; throughout, we provide examples of the uncertainties and compromises that researchers have to navigate to make progress in the most efficient way.

Indexed as

ConceptsDefinitionsExternal pilotFeasibilityFrameworkInternal pilotRandomised controlled trial (RCT)ReportingUncertainties

Identifiers

PMID36759879
PMCPMC9909985

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.