Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38096223›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Involving patients and the public In sTatistIcal Analysis pLans (INITIAL): A delphi survey.

Beatriz Goulão, Tim P Morris, Jane Blazeby, Carrol Gamble, Katie Gillies, Lynn Laidlaw, Craig Ramsay, Irene Soulsby, Derek Stewart, Nikki Totton

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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. Article
  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

10 authors.

Beatriz GoulãoHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1490-7183
Tim P MorrisMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-5850-3610
Jane BlazebyBristol NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Carrol GambleLiverpool Clinical Trials Centre, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Katie GilliesHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom.
Lynn LaidlawPublic Partner Co-author, INITIAL Advisory Group, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom.
Craig RamsayHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom.
Irene SoulsbyPublic Partner Co-author, INITIAL Advisory Group, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom.
Derek StewartPublic Partner Co-author, INITIAL Advisory Group, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom.
Nikki TottonSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-1900-2773

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UU_00004/07Medical Research Council MR/S014357/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient and public involvement (PPI) in trials aims to enhance research by improving its relevance and transparency. Planning for statistical analysis begins at the design stage of a trial within the protocol and is refined and detailed in a Statistical Analysis Plan (SAP). While PPI is common in design and protocol development it is less common within SAPs. This study aimed to reach consensus on the most important and relevant statistical analysis items within an SAP to involve patients and the public.

methodsWe developed a UK-based, two-round Delphi survey through an iterative consultation with public partners, statisticians, and trialists. The consultation process started with 55 items from international guidance for statistical analysis plans. We aimed to recruit at least 20 participants per key stakeholder group for inclusion in the final analysis of the Delphi survey. Participants were asked to vote on each item using a Likert scale from 1 to 9, where a rating of 1 to 3 was labelled as having 'limited importance'; 4 to 6 as 'important but not critical' and 7 to 9 as 'critical' to involve patients and the public. Results from the second round determined consensus on critical items for PPI.

resultsThe consultation exercise led to the inclusion of 15 statistical items in the Delphi survey. We recruited 179 participants, of whom 72% (129: 36 statisticians, 29 patients or public partners, 25 clinical researchers or methodologists, 27 trial managers, and 12 PPI coordinators) completed both rounds. Participants were on average 48 years old, 60% were female, 84% were White, 64% were based in England and 84% had at least five years' experience in trials. Four items reached consensus regarding critical importance for patient and public involvement: presentation of results to trial participants; summary and presentation of harms; interpretation and presentation of findings in an academic setting; factors impacting how well a treatment works. No consensus was reached for the remaining 11 items. In general, the results were consistent across stakeholder groups. DISCUSSION: We identified four critical items to involve patients and the public in statistical analysis plans. The remaining 11 items did not reach consensus and need to be considered in a case-by-case basis with most responders considering patient and public involvement important (but not critical). Our research provides a platform to enable focused future efforts to improve patient and public involvement in trials and enhance the relevance of statistical analyses to patients and the public.

Indexed as

Patient ParticipationResearch DesignConsensusDelphi TechniqueFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatients

Identifiers

PMID38096223
PMCPMC10721002

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.