The use of systematic reviews in the planning, design and conduct of randomised trials: a retrospective cohort of NIHR HTA funded trials
- PMID: 23530582
- PMCID: PMC3621166
- 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
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.
Similar articles
-
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12. Early Hum Dev. 2020. PMID: 33036834
-
Recruitment and retention of participants in randomised controlled trials: a review of trials funded and published by the United Kingdom Health Technology Assessment Programme.BMJ Open. 2017 Mar 20;7(3):e015276. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015276. BMJ Open. 2017. PMID: 28320800 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Using systematic reviews to inform NIHR HTA trial planning and design: a retrospective cohort.BMC Med Res Methodol. 2015 Dec 29;15:108. doi: 10.1186/s12874-015-0102-2. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2015. PMID: 26715462 Free PMC article.
-
Clinical trial metadata: defining and extracting metadata on the design, conduct, results and costs of 125 randomised clinical trials funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.Health Technol Assess. 2015 Feb;19(11):1-138. doi: 10.3310/hta19110. Health Technol Assess. 2015. PMID: 25671821 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Informative value of Patient Reported Outcomes (PRO) in Health Technology Assessment (HTA).GMS Health Technol Assess. 2011 Feb 2;7:Doc01. doi: 10.3205/hta000092. GMS Health Technol Assess. 2011. PMID: 21468289 Free PMC article.
Cited by
-
Effect of PRISMA 2009 on reporting quality in systematic reviews and meta-analyses in high-impact dental medicine journals between 1993-2018.PLoS One. 2023 Dec 14;18(12):e0295864. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0295864. eCollection 2023. PLoS One. 2023. PMID: 38096136 Free PMC article.
-
Designing and assessing a data literacy internship program for graduate health sciences students.J Med Libr Assoc. 2022 Oct 1;110(4):501-506. doi: 10.5195/jmla.2022.1498. J Med Libr Assoc. 2022. PMID: 37101914 Free PMC article.
-
Efficacy of psychosocial interventions for Autism spectrum disorder: an umbrella review.Mol Psychiatry. 2022 Sep;27(9):3647-3656. doi: 10.1038/s41380-022-01670-z. Epub 2022 Jul 5. Mol Psychiatry. 2022. PMID: 35790873 Free PMC article.
-
Are orthodontic randomised controlled trials justified with a citation of an appropriate systematic review?Prog Orthod. 2021 Dec 17;22(1):48. doi: 10.1186/s40510-021-00395-z. Prog Orthod. 2021. PMID: 34918200 Free PMC article.
-
Barriers and Facilitating Factors for Conducting Systematic Evidence Assessments in Academic Clinical Trials.JAMA Netw Open. 2021 Nov 1;4(11):e2136577. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.36577. JAMA Netw Open. 2021. PMID: 34846522 Free PMC article.
References
-
- 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
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources