ArticleTrials2026
Update to Trial Forge Guidance 2: addition of the Value of Information criterion.
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.
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.
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
6 authors.
Funding
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
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.