Dataset Information

What can qualitative research do for randomised controlled trials? A systematic mapping review.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To develop an empirically based framework of the aspects of randomised controlled trials addressed by qualitative research.

Design

Systematic mapping review of qualitative research undertaken with randomised controlled trials and published in peer-reviewed journals.

Data sources

MEDLINE, PreMEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Health Technology Assessment, PsycINFO, CINAHL, British Nursing Index, Social Sciences Citation Index and ASSIA.

Eligibility criteria

Articles reporting qualitative research undertaken with trials published between 2008 and September 2010; health research, reported in English.

Results

296 articles met the inclusion criteria. Articles focused on 22 aspects of the trial within five broad categories. Some articles focused on more than one aspect of the trial, totalling 356 examples. The qualitative research focused on the intervention being trialled (71%, 254/356); the design, process and conduct of the trial (15%, 54/356); the outcomes of the trial (1%, 5/356); the measures used in the trial (3%, 10/356); and the target condition for the trial (9%, 33/356). A minority of the qualitative research was undertaken at the pretrial stage (28%, 82/296). The value of the qualitative research to the trial itself was not always made explicit within the articles. The potential value included optimising the intervention and trial conduct, facilitating interpretation of the trial findings, helping trialists to be sensitive to the human beings involved in trials, and saving money by steering researchers towards interventions more likely to be effective in future trials.

Conclusions

A large amount of qualitative research undertaken with specific trials has been published, addressing a wide range of aspects of trials, with the potential to improve the endeavour of generating evidence of effectiveness of health interventions. Researchers can increase the impact of this work on trials by undertaking more of it at the pretrial stage and being explicit within their articles about the learning for trials and evidence-based practice.

SUBMITTER: O'Cathain A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3669723 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

What can qualitative research do for randomised controlled trials? A systematic mapping review.

O'Cathain A A Thomas K J KJ Drabble S J SJ Rudolph A A Hewison J J

BMJ open 20130620 6

<h4>Objective</h4>To develop an empirically based framework of the aspects of randomised controlled trials addressed by qualitative research.<h4>Design</h4>Systematic mapping review of qualitative research undertaken with randomised controlled trials and published in peer-reviewed journals.<h4>Data sources</h4>MEDLINE, PreMEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Health Technology Assessment, PsycINFO, CINAHL, British Nursing Index, Social Sciences Citation Index and ASSIA.<h4>Eligibility criteria< ...[more]

PMID: 23794542

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE:Randomised controlled trials (RCT) are the gold standard to provide unbiased data. However, when patients have a treatment preference, randomisation may influence participation and outcomes (eg, external and internal validity). The aim of this study was to assess the influence of patients' preference in RCTs by analysing partially randomised patient preference trials (RPPT); an RCT and preference cohort combined. DESIGN:Systematic review and meta-analyses. DATA SOURCES:MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES:RPPTs published between January 2005 and October 2018 reporting on allocation of patients to randomised and preference cohorts were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS:Two independent reviewers extracted data. The main outcomes were the difference in external validity (participation and baseline characteristics) and internal validity (lost to follow-up, crossover and the primary outcome) between the randomised and the preference cohort within each RPPT, compared in a meta-regression using a Wald test. Risk of bias was not assessed, as no quality assessment for RPPTs has yet been developed. RESULTS:In total, 117 of 3734 identified articles met screening criteria and 44 were eligible (24 873 patients). The participation rate in RPPTs was >95% in 14 trials (range: 48%-100%) and the randomisation refusal rate was >50% in 26 trials (range: 19%-99%). Higher education, female, older age, race and prior experience with one treatment arm were characteristics of patients declining randomisation. The lost to follow-up and cross-over rate were significantly higher in the randomised cohort compared with the preference cohort. Following the meta-analysis, the reported primary outcomes were comparable between both cohorts of the RPPTs, mean difference 0.093 (95% CI -0.178 to 0.364, p=0.502). CONCLUSIONS:Patients' preference led to a substantial proportion of a specific patient group refusing randomisation, while it did not influence the primary outcome within an RPPT. Therefore, RPPTs could increase external validity without compromising the internal validity compared with RCTs. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42019094438.

Project description:BackgroundRecruitment of participants into randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is critical for successful trial conduct. Although there have been two previous systematic reviews on related topics, the results (which identified specific interventions) were inconclusive and not generalizable. The aim of our study was to evaluate the relative effectiveness of recruitment strategies for participation in RCTs.Methods and findingsA systematic review, using the PRISMA guideline for reporting of systematic reviews, that compared methods of recruiting individual study participants into an actual or mock RCT were included. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and reference lists of relevant studies. From over 16,000 titles or abstracts reviewed, 396 papers were retrieved and 37 studies were included, in which 18,812 of at least 59,354 people approached agreed to participate in a clinical RCT. Recruitment strategies were broadly divided into four groups: novel trial designs (eight studies), recruiter differences (eight studies), incentives (two studies), and provision of trial information (19 studies). Strategies that increased people's awareness of the health problem being studied (e.g., an interactive computer program [relative risk (RR) 1.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00-2.18], attendance at an education session [RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.01-1.28], addition of a health questionnaire [RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.14-1.66]), or a video about the health condition (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.11-2.74), and also monetary incentives (RR1.39, 95% CI 1.13-1.64 to RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.28-1.84) improved recruitment. Increasing patients' understanding of the trial process, recruiter differences, and various methods of randomisation and consent design did not show a difference in recruitment. Consent rates were also higher for nonblinded trial design, but differential loss to follow up between groups may jeopardise the study findings. The study's main limitation was the necessity of modifying the search strategy with subsequent search updates because of changes in MEDLINE definitions. The abstracts of previous versions of this systematic review were published in 2002 and 2007.ConclusionRecruitment strategies that focus on increasing potential participants' awareness of the health problem being studied, its potential impact on their health, and their engagement in the learning process appeared to increase recruitment to clinical studies. Further trials of recruitment strategies that target engaging participants to increase their awareness of the health problems being studied and the potential impact on their health may confirm this hypothesis. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.

Project description:ObjectivesTo determine the incidence and characteristics of randomised controlled trials that report using the modified intention to treat approach, and how the approach is described.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesPubMed, Embase, Cochrane central register of controlled trials, ISI Web of Knowledge, Ovid, HighWire Press, Science-Direct, Ingenta, Medscape, BioMed Central, Springer, and Wiley, from inception to December 2006.Main outcome measuresIncidence of trials in which use of modified intention to treat was reported, and how the approach was described (classified according to the type and number of deviations from the intention to treat approach).Results475 randomised controlled trials reported use of a modified intention to treat analysis. Of these, 76 (16%) were published in five highly cited general medical journals. The incidence of all trials that reported use of modified intention to treat published in journals indexed in Medline increased from 0.006% in 1982-6 to 0.5% in 2002-6 (P<0.001 for linear trend). When the description of the modified intention to treat was examined in each trial, 192 (40%) reported one type of deviation from the intention to treat approach, 261 (55%) reported two or more types, and 22 (5%) did not describe any type. In 266 (56%) of the trials the deviation was related to the treatment received, in 196 (41%) to a post baseline assessment, in 118 (25%) to a baseline assessment, in 108 (23%) to a target condition, and in 23 (5%) to follow-up. Post-randomisation exclusions occurred in 380 (80%) trials. The results reported by 270 of the 352 (77%) superiority trials favoured the drug under investigation. All of the 123 trials using equivalence or non-inferiority methods to investigate interventions reported results that favoured their assumptions.ConclusionsRandomised controlled trials that report using a modified intention to treat are increasingly being published in the medical literature. The descriptions of such an approach were ambiguous, and may cover any type of descriptions for exclusion, such as missing data and deviation from protocol. Explicit statements about post-randomisation exclusions should replace the ambiguous terminology of modified intention to treat.

Project description:BackgroundRecruitment of patients is one of the main challenges when designing and conducting randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Trials of rare injuries or those that include surgical interventions pose added challenges due to the small number of potentially eligible patients and issues with patient preferences and surgeon equipoise. We explore key issues to consider when recruiting to orthopaedic surgical trials from the perspective of staff and patients with the aim of informing the development of strategies to improve recruitment in future research.DesignTwo qualitative process evaluations of a UK-wide orthopaedic surgical RCT (ACTIVE) and mixed methods randomised feasibility study (PRESTO). Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted and data was analysed thematically.SettingNHS secondary care organisations throughout the UK. Interviews were undertaken via telephone.ParticipantsThirty-seven health professionals including UK-based spinal and orthopaedic surgeons and individuals involved in recruitment to the ACTIVE and PRESTO studies (e.g. research nurses, surgeons, physiotherapists). Twenty-two patients including patients who agreed to participate in the ACTIVE and PRESTO studies (n=15) and patients that declined participation in the ACTIVE study (n=7) were interviewed.ResultsWe used a mixed methods systematic review of recruiting patients to randomised controlled trials as a framework for reporting and analysing our findings. Our findings mapped onto those identified in the systematic review and highlighted the importance of equipoise, randomisation, communication, patient's circumstances, altruism and trust in clinical and research teams. Our findings also emphasised the importance of considering how eligibility criteria are operationalised and the impact of complex patient pathways when recruiting to surgical trials. In particular, the influence of health professionals, who are not involved in trial recruitment, on patients' treatment preferences by suggesting they would receive a certain treatment ahead of recruitment consultations should not be underestimated.ConclusionsA wealth of evidence exploring factors affecting recruitment to randomised controlled trials exists. A methodological shift is now required to ensure that this evidence is used by all those involved in recruitment and to ensure that existing knowledge is translated into methods for optimising recruitment to future trials.Trial registrationACTIVE: ( ISRCTN98152560 ). Registered on 06/03/2018. PRESTO: ( ISRCTN12094890 ). Registered on 22/02/2018.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:We evaluated current evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) regarding the effectiveness of chemical peeling for treating acne vulgaris. METHODS:Standard Cochrane methodological procedures were used. We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and EMBASE via OvidSP through April 2017. Reviewers independently assessed eligibility, risk of bias and extracted data. RESULTS:Twelve RCTs (387 participants) were included. Effectiveness was not significantly different: trichloroacetic acid versus salicylic acid (SA) (percentage of total improvement: risk ratio (RR) 0.89; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.10), glycolic acid (GA) versus amino fruit acid (the reduction of inflammatory lesions: mean difference (MD), 0.20; 95%?CI -3.03 to 3.43), SA versus pyruvic acid (excellent or good improvement: RR 1.11; 95%?CI 0.73 to 1.69), GA versus SA (good or fair improvement: RR 1.00; 95%?CI 0.85 to 1.18), GA versus Jessner's solution (JS) (self-reported improvements: RR 1.00; 95%?CI 0.44 to 2.26), and lipohydroxy acid versus SA (reduction of non-inflammatory lesions: 55.6%vs48.5%, p=0.878). Combined SA and mandelic acid peeling was superior to GA peeling (percentage of improvement in total acne score: 85.3%vs68.5%, p<0.001). GA peeling was superior to placebo (excellent or good improvement: RR 2.30; 95%?CI 1.40 to 3.77). SA peeling may be superior to JS peeling for comedones (reduction of comedones: 53.4%vs26.3%, p=0.001) but less effective than phototherapy for pustules (number of pustules: MD -7.00; 95%?CI -10.84 to -3.16). LIMITATIONS:The methodological quality of the included RCTs was very low to moderate. Meta-analysis was not possible due to the significant clinical heterogeneity across studies. CONCLUSION:Commonly used chemical peels appear to be similarly effective for mild-to-moderate acne vulgaris and well tolerated. However, based on current limited evidence, a robust conclusion cannot be drawn regarding any definitive superiority or equality among the currently used chemical peels. Well-designed RCTs are needed to identify optimal regimens.

Dataset Information

What can qualitative research do for randomised controlled trials? A systematic mapping review.

Objective

Design

Data sources

Eligibility criteria

Results

Conclusions

Publications

What can qualitative research do for randomised controlled trials? A systematic mapping review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets