Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41749091›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2026

Bayesian adaptive trial designs for evaluating low-risk programmatic changes for quality improvement in health services: a simulation study.

Min Jung Kim, David Prieto-Merino, Jennifer Nicholas, Luke Allen, Andrew Bastawrous, David Macleod

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 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.

Min Jung KimFaculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK. 83890@snuh.org.
David Prieto-MerinoFaculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Jennifer NicholasFaculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Luke AllenFaculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Andrew BastawrousInternational Centre for Eye Health, Clinical Research Department, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
David MacleodFaculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.

Funding

Wellcome Trust 215633/Z/19/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundQuality improvement in health service programmes often involves introducing small, low-risk programmatic changes, such as modifying workflows, to incrementally improve outcomes, which accumulate over time to have significant overall gains in quality and efficiency. Although these changes are common in health services, they are rarely evaluated using statistically rigorous designs, partly because conventional randomised trials are perceived as inefficient for detecting modest effects. This study was motivated by a vision screening and referral programme and focuses on evaluating the modest but important impacts of low-risk QI interventions.

methodsTo advance data-driven approaches for achieving quality improvement, we used a simulation study to explore the use of Bayesian adaptive trial designs to compare two variants of programmatic changes that yield small improvements in outcomes. The study examined key adaptive design features, including interim analysis frequency, prior specification, and early stopping rules for efficacy and equivalence. Changes in error rates, sample size, and bias were assessed across scenarios with small effect sizes ranging from 0% to 5%.

resultsThe findings were used to configure an ideal trial design that prioritises rapid identification of the more effective programmatic change while minimizing the risk of adopting an inferior one. The recommended trial design incorporates a sceptical prior, a stringent stopping rule for efficacy, and a relaxed criteria to stop for equivalence. Under this design, a marginal improvement as small as 1% could be detected with high probability using considerably fewer participants than would be required under conventional, fixed-size randomised controlled trials.

conclusionsBayesian adaptive trial designs offer a feasible approach for evaluating low-risk, incremental QI interventions in high-throughput service settings. Their use may support more efficient, data-driven decision-making when modest improvements are expected and the consequences of incorrect adoption are limited.

Indexed as

Health ServicesQuality ImprovementResearch DesignBayes TheoremComputer SimulationHumansSample SizeAdaptive trialBayesian analysisInterim analysisQuality improvementSimulationStopping rules

Identifiers

PMID41749091
PMCPMC13049811

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.