Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41578386›Full record

ArticleTrials2026

Update to Trial Forge Guidance 2: addition of the Value of Information criterion.

Athanasios Gkekas, Adwoa Parker, Shaun Treweek, Elizabeth Coleman, Catherine Arundel, Frances Shiely

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Athanasios GkekasYork Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK. nassos.gkekas@york.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4357-9043
Adwoa ParkerYork Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.
Shaun TreweekAberdeen Centre for Evaluation, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland, UK.
Elizabeth ColemanYork Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.
Catherine ArundelYork Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.
Frances ShielySchool of Public Health, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.

Funding

Health Research Board HRB-Trials Methodology Research Network (HRB-TMRN) Working Group Award 2023
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Trial Forge Guidance 2 helps trial teams decide if another Study Within A Trial (SWAT) is needed to answer an existing research question. Five criteria are listed to assist decision-making. We are adding a sixth criterion, the Value of Information, to additionally consider the potential time and financial constraints of improving trial process evidence. The Value of Information criterion assesses each trial process based on its value of additional research and value of implementation. We consider evaluations of recruitment and retention strategies as exemplars of how such an approach could be applied to randomised evaluations of trial processes via SWATs. We applied the Value of Information Analysis to all recruitment strategies and categorised them according to their expected benefits in terms of improved recruitment, as well as the level of statistical uncertainty compared to other recruitment strategies. The same approach was followed for retention strategies. To support its use, we have developed an electronic tool that calculates and presents the criterion results for each available evaluation of recruitment and retention strategies. This will enable trial teams to apply the Value of Information criterion, along with the five existing criteria of Trial Forge Guidance 2, when deciding if further SWATs should be prioritised for a particular trial process strategy to provide evidence for the strategy's use, or not during a trial.

Indexed as

Patient SelectionRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch DesignHumansRecruitmentRetentionStudies Within A TrialSWATsTrial Forge Guidance 2Trial processesValue of Information Analysis

Identifiers

PMID41578386
PMCPMC12910824

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.