Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2013 Mar 25:13:50.
doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-13-50.

The use of systematic reviews in the planning, design and conduct of randomised trials: a retrospective cohort of NIHR HTA funded trials

Affiliations

The use of systematic reviews in the planning, design and conduct of randomised trials: a retrospective cohort of NIHR HTA funded trials

Ashley P Jones et al. BMC Med Res Methodol. .

Abstract

Background: A systematic review, with or without a meta-analysis, should be undertaken to determine if the research question of interest has already been answered before a new trial begins. There has been limited research on how systematic reviews are used within the design of new trials, the aims of this study were to investigate how systematic reviews of earlier trials are used in the planning and design of new randomised trials.

Methods: Documentation from the application process for all randomised trials funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment (NIHR HTA) between 2006 and 2008 were obtained. This included the: commissioning brief (if appropriate), outline application, minutes of the Board meeting in which the outline application was discussed, full application, detailed project description, referee comments, investigator response to referee comments, Board minutes on the full application and the trial protocol. Data were extracted on references to systematic reviews and how any such reviews had been used in the planning and design of the trial.

Results: 50 randomised trials were funded by NIHR HTA during this period and documentation was available for 48 of these. The cohort was predominately individually randomised parallel trials aiming to detect superiority between two treatments for a single primary outcome. 37 trials (77.1%) referenced a systematic review within the application and 20 of these (i.e. 41.7% of the total) used information contained in the systematic review in the design or planning of the new trial. The main areas in which systematic reviews were used were in the selection or definition of an outcome to be measured in the trial (7 of 37, 18.9%), the sample size calculation (7, 18.9%), the duration of follow up (8, 21.6%) and the approach to describing adverse events (9, 24.3%). Boards did not comment on the presence/absence or use of systematic reviews in any application.

Conclusions: Systematic reviews were referenced in most funded applications but just over half of these used the review to inform the design. There is an expectation from funders that applicants will use a systematic review to justify the need for a new trial but no expectation regarding further use of a systematic review to aid planning and design of the trial. Guidelines for applicants and funders should be developed to promote the use of systematic reviews in the design and planning of randomised trials, to optimise delivery of new studies informed by the most up-to-date evidence base and to minimise waste in research.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Clarke L, Clarke M, Clarke T. How useful are Cochrane reviews in identifying research needs? J Health Serv Res Policy. 2007;12:101–103. doi: 10.1258/135581907780279648. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Sutton AJ, Cooper NJ, Jones DR. Evidence synthesis as the key to more coherent and efficient research. BMC Med Res Method. 2009;9(29) - PMC - PubMed
    1. Thompson M, Tiwari A, Fu R, Moe E, Buckley DI. A Framework to Facilitate the Use of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses in the Design of Primary Research Studies. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2012. ((Prepared by the Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract HHSA 290- 2007-10057-I.) AHRQ Publication No. 12-EHC009-EF). - PubMed
    1. Goudie AC, Sutton AJ, Jones DR, Donald A. Empirical assessment suggests that existing evidence could be used more fully in designing randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:983–991. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.01.022. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Clarke M, Hopewell S, Chalmers I. Clinical trials should begin and end with systematic reviews of relevant evidence: 12 years and waiting. The Lancet. 2010;376:20–21. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61045-8. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources

-