Search engine for discovering works of Art, research articles, and books related to Art and Culture
ShareThis
Javascript must be enabled to continue!

Methodological changes made to NIHR-funded randomised controlled trials: review of 100 trials

View through CrossRef
Abstract Background Previous studies have reviewed protocol amendments to trial methods in commercial studies and single centres. These studies identified that many were avoidable changes. This study aimed to assess the types of changes and rationale for changes in publicly funded randomised controlled trials undertaken in the UK. Methods The most recent 100 published randomised controlled trials, on 23rd June 2024, in two NIHR Journals ( Health Technology Assessment and Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation ), were selected for review. Data was collected on trial characteristics and the changes reported in the protocol, published reports, and trial registry entry. Results Of the 100 included trials, 90 reported changes to the methods. A total of 846 methodological changes were recorded; 45.49% of the recorded changes occurred within the first year of study conduct. A rationale was provided for 204 of the changes with 39 unique reasons given. Frequent reasons for the changes were oversight committee recommendations, site feedback, COVID, and alignment with clinical guidance. The changes were not universally reported across the report, protocol, and registry entry and less than half were reported on the trial registry. Conclusions The majority of NIHR-funded trials make methodological changes throughout the duration of the trial, with a large proportion being made within the first year. Consideration should be given to whether a change in the way trials are designed and planned could reduce the need for changes early on. The reporting of methodological changes also needs improvement to ensure trial documentation is consistent and up to date. Trial registration This project was registered on the OSF registry, the details of the registration are available here: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/WV2GX . Registered on July 22 2024.
Title: Methodological changes made to NIHR-funded randomised controlled trials: review of 100 trials
Description:
Abstract Background Previous studies have reviewed protocol amendments to trial methods in commercial studies and single centres.
These studies identified that many were avoidable changes.
This study aimed to assess the types of changes and rationale for changes in publicly funded randomised controlled trials undertaken in the UK.
Methods The most recent 100 published randomised controlled trials, on 23rd June 2024, in two NIHR Journals ( Health Technology Assessment and Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation ), were selected for review.
Data was collected on trial characteristics and the changes reported in the protocol, published reports, and trial registry entry.
Results Of the 100 included trials, 90 reported changes to the methods.
A total of 846 methodological changes were recorded; 45.
49% of the recorded changes occurred within the first year of study conduct.
A rationale was provided for 204 of the changes with 39 unique reasons given.
Frequent reasons for the changes were oversight committee recommendations, site feedback, COVID, and alignment with clinical guidance.
The changes were not universally reported across the report, protocol, and registry entry and less than half were reported on the trial registry.
Conclusions The majority of NIHR-funded trials make methodological changes throughout the duration of the trial, with a large proportion being made within the first year.
Consideration should be given to whether a change in the way trials are designed and planned could reduce the need for changes early on.
The reporting of methodological changes also needs improvement to ensure trial documentation is consistent and up to date.
Trial registration This project was registered on the OSF registry, the details of the registration are available here: https://doi.
org/10.
17605/OSF.
IO/WV2GX .
Registered on July 22 2024.

Related Results

Evolution of Antimicrobial Resistance in Community vs. Hospital-Acquired Infections
Evolution of Antimicrobial Resistance in Community vs. Hospital-Acquired Infections
Abstract Introduction Hospitals are high-risk environments for infections. Despite the global recognition of these pathogens, few studies compare microorganisms from community-acqu...
Current therapeutic strategies for erectile function recovery after radical prostatectomy – literature review and meta-analysis
Current therapeutic strategies for erectile function recovery after radical prostatectomy – literature review and meta-analysis
Radical prostatectomy is the most commonly performed treatment option for localised prostate cancer. In the last decades the surgical technique has been improved and modified in or...
Evaluating the Science to Inform the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans Midcourse Report
Evaluating the Science to Inform the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans Midcourse Report
Abstract The Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans (Guidelines) advises older adults to be as active as possible. Yet, despite the well documented benefits of physical a...
Defining the Features of Registry Based Randomised Controlled Trials (rRCT): A Systematic Review
Defining the Features of Registry Based Randomised Controlled Trials (rRCT): A Systematic Review
Abstract Background: Registry Based Randomised Controlled Trials have been described as pragmatic studies utilising patient data embedded in large scale registries, to faci...
Assessment of Chat-GPT, Gemini, and Perplexity in Principle of Research Publication: A Comparative Study
Assessment of Chat-GPT, Gemini, and Perplexity in Principle of Research Publication: A Comparative Study
Abstract Introduction Many researchers utilize artificial intelligence (AI) to aid their research endeavors. This study seeks to assess and contrast the performance of three sophis...
Do evidence summaries increase health policy‐makers' use of evidence from systematic reviews? A systematic review
Do evidence summaries increase health policy‐makers' use of evidence from systematic reviews? A systematic review
This review summarizes the evidence from six randomized controlled trials that judged the effectiveness of systematic review summaries on policymakers' decision making, or the most...
Small Cell Lung Cancer and Tarlatamab: A Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials
Small Cell Lung Cancer and Tarlatamab: A Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials
Abstract Introduction Tarlatamab is a Delta-like ligand 3 (DLL3) -directed bispecific T-cell engager recently approved for use in patients with advanced small cell lung cancer (SCL...

Back to Top