Dataset Information

Defining Feasibility and Pilot Studies in Preparation for Randomised Controlled Trials: Development of a Conceptual Framework.

ABSTRACT: We describe a framework for defining pilot and feasibility studies focusing on studies conducted in preparation for a randomised controlled trial. To develop the framework, we undertook a Delphi survey; ran an open meeting at a trial methodology conference; conducted a review of definitions outside the health research context; consulted experts at an international consensus meeting; and reviewed 27 empirical pilot or feasibility studies. We initially adopted mutually exclusive definitions of pilot and feasibility studies. However, some Delphi survey respondents and the majority of open meeting attendees disagreed with the idea of mutually exclusive definitions. Their viewpoint was supported by definitions outside the health research context, the use of the terms 'pilot' and 'feasibility' in the literature, and participants at the international consensus meeting. In our framework, pilot studies are a subset of feasibility studies, rather than the two being mutually exclusive. A feasibility study asks whether something can be done, should we proceed with it, and if so, how. A pilot study asks the same questions but also has a specific design feature: in a pilot study a future study, or part of a future study, is conducted on a smaller scale. We suggest that to facilitate their identification, these studies should be clearly identified using the terms 'feasibility' or 'pilot' as appropriate. This should include feasibility studies that are largely qualitative; we found these difficult to identify in electronic searches because researchers rarely used the term 'feasibility' in the title or abstract of such studies. Investigators should also report appropriate objectives and methods related to feasibility; and give clear confirmation that their study is in preparation for a future randomised controlled trial designed to assess the effect of an intervention.

SUBMITTER: Eldridge SM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4792418 | biostudies-literature | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Defining Feasibility and Pilot Studies in Preparation for Randomised Controlled Trials: Development of a Conceptual Framework.

Eldridge Sandra M SM Lancaster Gillian A GA Campbell Michael J MJ Thabane Lehana L Hopewell Sally S Coleman Claire L CL Bond Christine M CM

PloS one 20160315 3

We describe a framework for defining pilot and feasibility studies focusing on studies conducted in preparation for a randomised controlled trial. To develop the framework, we undertook a Delphi survey; ran an open meeting at a trial methodology conference; conducted a review of definitions outside the health research context; consulted experts at an international consensus meeting; and reviewed 27 empirical pilot or feasibility studies. We initially adopted mutually exclusive definitions of pil ...[more]

PMID: 26978655

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo assess the value of pilot and feasibility studies to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme. To explore the methodological components of pilot/feasibility studies and how they inform full RCTs.Study designCross-sectional study.SettingBoth groups included NIHR HTA programme funded studies in the period 1 January 2010-31 December 2014 (decision date). Group 1: stand-alone pilot/feasibility studies published in the HTA Journal or accepted for publication. Group 2: all funded RCT applications funded by the HTA programme, including reference to an internal and/or external pilot/feasibility study. The methodological components were assessed using an adapted framework from a previous study.Main outcome measuresThe proportion of stand-alone pilot and feasibility studies which recommended proceeding to full trial and what study elements were assessed. The proportion of 'HTA funded' trials which used internal and external pilot and feasibility studies to inform the design of the trial.ResultsGroup 1 identified 15 stand-alone pilot/feasibility studies. Study elements most commonly assessed were testing recruitment (100% in both groups), feasibility (83%, 100%) and suggestions for further study/investigation (83%, 100%). Group 2 identified 161 'HTA funded' applications: 59 cited an external pilot/feasibility study where testing recruitment (50%, 73%) and feasibility (42%, 73%) were the most commonly reported study elements: 92 reported an internal pilot/feasibility study where testing recruitment (93%, 100%) and feasibility (44%, 92%) were the most common study elements reported.Conclusions'HTA funded' research which includes pilot and feasibility studies assesses a variety of study elements. Pilot and feasibility studies serve an important role when determining the most appropriate trial design. However, how they are reported and in what context requires caution when interpreting the findings and delivering a definitive trial.

Project description:The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement is a guideline designed to improve the transparency and quality of the reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). In this article we present an extension to that statement for randomised pilot and feasibility trials conducted in advance of a future definitive RCT. The checklist applies to any randomised study in which a future definitive RCT, or part of it, is conducted on a smaller scale, regardless of its design (eg, cluster, factorial, crossover) or the terms used by authors to describe the study (eg, pilot, feasibility, trial, study). The extension does not directly apply to internal pilot studies built into the design of a main trial, non-randomised pilot and feasibility studies, or phase II studies, but these studies all have some similarities to randomised pilot and feasibility studies and so many of the principles might also apply. The development of the extension was motivated by the growing number of studies described as feasibility or pilot studies and by research that has identified weaknesses in their reporting and conduct. We followed recommended good practice to develop the extension, including carrying out a Delphi survey, holding a consensus meeting and research team meetings, and piloting the checklist. The aims and objectives of pilot and feasibility randomised studies differ from those of other randomised trials. Consequently, although much of the information to be reported in these trials is similar to those in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing effectiveness and efficacy, there are some key differences in the type of information and in the appropriate interpretation of standard CONSORT reporting items. We have retained some of the original CONSORT statement items, but most have been adapted, some removed, and new items added. The new items cover how participants were identified and consent obtained; if applicable, the prespecified criteria used to judge whether or how to proceed with a future definitive RCT; if relevant, other important unintended consequences; implications for progression from pilot to future definitive RCT, including any proposed amendments; and ethical approval or approval by a research review committee confirmed with a reference number. This article includes the 26 item checklist, a separate checklist for the abstract, a template for a CONSORT flowchart for these studies, and an explanation of the changes made and supporting examples. We believe that routine use of this proposed extension to the CONSORT statement will result in improvements in the reporting of pilot trials. Editor's note: In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the BMJ and Pilot and Feasibility Studies journal websites.

Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate: acceptability and feasibility of trial procedures; distribution of scores on the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ, planned primary outcome); and efficient working of trial components.Design and settingA feasibility and external pilot randomised controlled trial (ISRCTN33808269, assigned 10/12/2012) was conducted across 2 UK secondary care outpatient physiotherapy departments associated with regional spinal surgery centres.ParticipantsConsecutive consenting patients aged >18 years; post primary, single level, lumbar discectomy.InterventionsParticipants were randomised to either 1:1 physiotherapy outpatient management including patient leaflet, or patient leaflet alone.Main outcome measuresBlinded assessments were made at 4 weeks post surgery (baseline) and 12 weeks post baseline (proposed primary end point). Secondary outcomes included: Global Perceived Effect, back/leg pain, straight leg raise, return to work/function, quality of life, fear avoidance, range of movement, medication, re-operation.ResultsAt discharge, 110 (44%) eligible patients gave consent to be contacted. 59 (54%) patients were recruited. Loss to follow up was 39% at 12 weeks, with one site contributing 83% losses. Mean (SD) RMDQ was 10.07 (5.58) leaflet and 10.52 (5.94) physiotherapy/leaflet at baseline; and 5.37 (4.91) leaflet and 5.53 (4.49) physiotherapy/leaflet at 12 weeks. 5.1% zero scores at 12 weeks illustrated no floor effect. Sensitivity to change was assessed at 12 weeks with mean (SD) change -4.53 (6.41), 95%CI -7.61 to -1.44 for leaflet; and -6.18 (5.59), 95%CI -9.01 to -3.30 for physiotherapy/leaflet. RMDQ mean difference (95%CI) between change from baseline to twelve weeks was 1.65(-2.46 to 5.75). Mean difference (95%CI) between groups at 12 weeks was -0.16 (-3.36 to 3.04). Participant adherence with treatment was good. No adverse events were reported.ConclusionsBoth interventions were acceptable, and it is promising that they both demonstrated a trend in reducing disability in this population. A randomised controlled trial, using a different trial design, is needed to ascertain the effectiveness of combining the interventions into a stepped care intervention and comparing to a no intervention arm. Findings will guide design changes for an adequately powered randomised controlled trial, using RMDQ as the primary outcome.Trial registrationISRCTN registry 33808269.

Project description:BackgroundThe reporting of randomised controlled non-inferiority (NI) drug trials is poor with less than 50% of published trials reporting a justification of the NI margin. This is despite the introduction of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) extension on reporting of NI and equivalence in randomised trials. It is critical to set the appropriate NI margin as this choice dictates the conclusions of the trial. Methods to estimate the margin are heterogeneous but generally based on clinical judgement and statistical reasoning, and hence tailored to each clinical situation. Yet an appraisal of NI in clinical trials has not been undertaken. Therefore the aim of this systematic review is to assess the reporting and methodological quality of defining the NI margin. Surgical NI trials have been chosen as our prototype to assess this.MethodsWe will conduct a systematic review of published randomised controlled trials in abdominal surgery that use an NI design. Key eligibility criteria will be: surgical intervention in at least one trial arm; adult patients and a sample size of 100 or more. Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials will be searched from inception until the date of the search. Identified studies will be assessed for reporting according to the CONSORT recommendations. The outcomes are the description of the methods for defining the NI margin, and the robustness of the NI margin estimation. The latter will be based on simulations using alternative assumptions for model parameters. The results of the simulation will be compared with the trial authors' conclusions.Anticipated resultsThe review will describe and appraise the design and reporting of surgical NI trials including shortcomings thereof and allow a comparison with pharmaceutical trials. These findings will inform researchers on the appropriate design and pitfalls when conducting surgical randomised controlled trials with an NI design and promote thorough and standardised reporting of study findings.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required and any changes to the protocol will be communicated via the registration platform. The final manuscript will be submitted to a journal for publication and the findings will be disseminated through conference presentations to inform researchers and the public.

Dataset Information

Defining Feasibility and Pilot Studies in Preparation for Randomised Controlled Trials: Development of a Conceptual Framework.

Publications

Defining Feasibility and Pilot Studies in Preparation for Randomised Controlled Trials: Development of a Conceptual Framework.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets