ArticlePilot and feasibility studies2024
Recommendations for optimising pilot and feasibility work in surgery.
Article in Pilot and feasibility studies, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSurgical trials are recognised as inherently challenging. Pilot and feasibility studies (PAFS) are increasingly acknowledged as a key method to optimise the design and conduct of randomised trials but remain limited in surgery. We used a mixed methods approach to develop recommendations for how surgical PAFS could be optimised.
methodsThe findings from a quantitative analysis of funded surgical PAFS over a 10-year period and in-depth qualitative interviews with surgeons, methodologists and funders were triangulated and synthesised with available methodological guidance on PAFS.
resultsThe synthesis informed the development of an explanatory model describing root causes and compounding challenges that contribute to how and why surgical PAFS is not currently optimised. The four root causes identified include issues relating to (i) understanding the full scope of PAFS; (ii) design and conduct of PAFS; (iii) reporting of PAFS; and (iv) lack of appreciation of the value of PAFS by all stakeholder groups. Compounding challenges relate to both cultural issues and access to and interpretation of available methodological PAFS guidance. The study findings and explanatory model were used to inform the development of a practical guidance tool for surgeons and study teams to improve research practice.
conclusionsOptimisation of PAFS in surgery requires a cultural shift in research practice amongst funders, academic institutions, regulatory bodies and journal editors, as well as amongst surgeons. Our 'Top Tips' guidance tool offers an accessible framework for surgeons designing PAFS. Adoption and utilisation of these recommendations will optimise surgical PAFS, facilitating successful and efficient future surgical trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.