Dataset Information

Involving clinical experts in prioritising topics for health technology assessment: a randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

The objective of this study was to explore whether reducing the material supplied to external experts during peer review and decreasing the burden of response would maintain review quality into prioritising research questions for a major research funder.

Methods and analysis

Clinical experts who agreed to review documents outlining research for potential commissioning were screened for eligibility and randomised in a factorial design to two types of review materials (long document versus short document) and response modes (structured review form versus free text email response). Previous and current members of the funder's programme groups were excluded. Response quality was assessed by use of a four-point scoring tool and analysed by intention to treat.

Results

554 consecutive experts were screened for eligibility and 460 were randomised (232 and 228 to long document or short document, respectively; 230 each to structured response or free text). 356 participants provided reviews, 90 did not respond and 14 were excluded after randomisation as not eligible.The pooled mean quality score was 2.4 (SD=0.95). The short document scored 0.037 (Cohen's d=0.039) extra quality points over the long document arm, and the structured response scored 0.335 (Cohen's d=0.353) over free text. The allocation did not appear to have any effect on the experts' willingness to engage with the task.

Conclusions

Neither providing a short or a long document outlining suggested research was shown to be superior. However, providing a structured form to guide the expert response provided more useful information than allowing free text. The funder should continue to use a structured form to gather responses. It would be acceptable to provide shorter documents to reviewers, if there were reasons to do so.

Trial registration number

ANZCTR12614000167662.

SUBMITTER: Cook A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5629658 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Involving clinical experts in prioritising topics for health technology assessment: a randomised controlled trial.

Cook Andrew A Streit Elke E Davage Gill G

BMJ open 20170821 8

<h4>Objectives</h4>The objective of this study was to explore whether reducing the material supplied to external experts during peer review and decreasing the burden of response would maintain review quality into prioritising research questions for a major research funder.<h4>Methods and analysis</h4>Clinical experts who agreed to review documents outlining research for potential commissioning were screened for eligibility and randomised in a factorial design to two types of review materials (lo ...[more]

PMID: 28827250

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPrevious research reviewed treatment success and whether the collective uncertainty principle is met in RCTs in the US National Cancer Institute portfolio. This paper classifies clinical trials funded by the UK HTA programme by results using the method applied to the US Cancer Institute trials, and compares the two portfolios.MethodsData on all completed randomised controlled trials funded by the HTA programme 1993-2008 were extracted. Each trial's primary results was classified into six categories; 1) statistically significant in favour of the new treatment, 2) statistically significant in favour of the control treatment 3) true negative, 4) truly inconclusive, 5) inconclusive in favour of new treatment or 6) inconclusive in favour of control treatment. Trials were classified by comparing the 95% confidence interval for the difference in primary outcome to the difference specified in the sample size calculation. The results were compared with Djulbegovic's analysis of NCI trials.ResultsData from 51 superiority trials were included, involving over 48,000 participants and a range of diseases and interventions. 85 primary comparisons were available because some trials had more than two randomised arms or had several primary outcomes. The new treatment had superior results (whether significant or not) in 61% of the comparisons (52/85 95% CI 49.9% to 71.6%). The results were conclusive in 46% of the comparisons (19% statistically significant in favour of the new treatment, 5% statistically significant in favour of the control and 22% true negative). The results were classified as truly inconclusive (i.e. failed to answer the question asked) for 24% of comparisons (20/85). HTA trials included fewer truly inconclusive and statistically significant results and more results rated as true negative than NCI trials.ConclusionsThe pattern of results in HTA trials is similar to that of the National Cancer Institute portfolio. Differences that existed were plausible given the differences in the types of trials -HTA trials are more pragmatic. The results indicate HTA trials are compatible with equipoise. This classification usefully summarises the results from clinical trials and enables comparisons of different portfolios of trials.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Despite evidence from clinical trials that intravenous (IV) thrombolysis is a cost-effective treatment for selected acute ischaemic stroke patients, there remain large variations in the rate of IV thrombolysis delivery between stroke services. This study is evaluating whether an enhanced care pathway delivered by paramedics (the Paramedic Acute Stroke Treatment Assessment (PASTA)) could increase the number of patients who receive IV thrombolysis treatment. METHODS:Study design: Cluster randomised trial with economic analysis and parallel process evaluation. SETTING:National Health Service ambulance services, emergency departments and hyper-acute stroke units within three geographical regions of England and Wales. Randomisation: Ambulance stations within each region are the units of randomisation. According to station allocation, paramedics based at a station deliver the PASTA pathway (intervention) or continue with standard stroke care (control). Study intervention: The PASTA pathway includes structured pre-hospital information collection, prompted pre-notification, structured handover of information in hospital and assistance with simple tasks during the initial hospital assessment. Study-trained intervention group paramedics deliver this pathway to adults within 4 h of suspected stroke onset. Study control: Standard stroke care according to national and local guidelines for the pre-hospital and hospital assessment of suspected stroke. PARTICIPANTS:Participants enrolled in the study are adults with confirmed stroke who were assessed by a study paramedic within 4 h of symptom onset. PRIMARY OUTCOME:Proportion of participants receiving IV thrombolysis. SAMPLE SIZE:1297 participants provide 90% power to detect a 10% difference in the proportion of patients receiving IV thrombolysis. DISCUSSION:The results from this trial will determine whether an enhanced care pathway delivered by paramedics can increase thrombolysis delivery rates. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN12418919 . Registered on 5 November 2015.

Project description:Investigate the effectiveness of a complex intervention aimed at improving the appropriateness of medication in older patients with multimorbidity in general practice.Pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial with general practice as unit of randomisation.72 general practices in Hesse, Germany.505 randomly sampled, cognitively intact patients (?60 years, ?3?chronic conditions under pharmacological treatment, ?5?long-term drug prescriptions with systemic effects); 465 patients and 71 practices completed the study.Intervention group (IG): The healthcare assistant conducted a checklist-based interview with patients on medication-related problems and reconciled their medications. Assisted by a computerised decision support system, the general practitioner optimised medication, discussed it with patients and adjusted it accordingly. The control group (CG) continued with usual care.The primary outcome was a modified Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI, excluding item 10 on cost-effectiveness), assessed in blinded medication reviews and calculated as the difference between baseline and after 6 months; secondary outcomes after 6 and 9?months' follow-up: quality of life, functioning, medication adherence, and so on.At baseline, a high proportion of patients had appropriate to mildly inappropriate prescriptions (MAI 0-5 points: n=350 patients). Randomisation revealed balanced groups (IG: 36 practices/252 patients; CG: 36/253). Intervention had no significant effect on primary outcome: mean MAI sum scores decreased by 0.3 points in IG and 0.8 points in CG, resulting in a non-significant adjusted mean difference of 0.7 (95% CI -0.2 to 1.6) points in favour of CG. Secondary outcomes showed non-significant changes (quality of life slightly improved in IG but continued to decline in CG) or remained stable (functioning, medication adherence).The intervention had no significant effects. Many patients already received appropriate prescriptions and enjoyed good quality of life and functional status. We can therefore conclude that in our study, there was not enough scope for improvement.ISRCTN99526053. NCT01171339; Results.

Dataset Information

Involving clinical experts in prioritising topics for health technology assessment: a randomised controlled trial.

Objectives

Methods and analysis

Results

Conclusions

Trial registration number

Publications

Involving clinical experts in prioritising topics for health technology assessment: a randomised controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets