Progression criteria in trials with an internal pilot: an audit of publicly funded randomised controlled trials

Abstract Background With millions of pounds spent annually on medical research in the UK, it is important that studies are spending funds wisely. Internal pilots offer the chance to stop a trial early if it becomes apparent that the study will not be able to recruit enough patients to show whether a...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Esther Herbert, Steven A. Julious, Steve Goodacre
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2019-08-01
Series:Trials
Subjects:
Online Access:http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13063-019-3578-y
id doaj-a8c23bfb8c6248ca938d18eb4afd3470
record_format Article
spelling doaj-a8c23bfb8c6248ca938d18eb4afd34702020-11-25T04:00:11ZengBMCTrials1745-62152019-08-012011910.1186/s13063-019-3578-yProgression criteria in trials with an internal pilot: an audit of publicly funded randomised controlled trialsEsther Herbert0Steven A. Julious1Steve Goodacre2School of Health and Related Research, University of SheffieldSchool of Health and Related Research, University of SheffieldSchool of Health and Related Research, University of SheffieldAbstract Background With millions of pounds spent annually on medical research in the UK, it is important that studies are spending funds wisely. Internal pilots offer the chance to stop a trial early if it becomes apparent that the study will not be able to recruit enough patients to show whether an intervention is clinically effective. This study aims to assess the use of internal pilots in individually randomised controlled trials funded by the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme and to summarise the progression criteria chosen in these trials. Methods Studies were identified from reports of the HTA committees’ funding decisions from 2012 to 2016. In total, 242 trials were identified of which 134 were eligible to be included in the audit. Protocols for the eligible studies were located on the NIHR Journals website, and if protocols were not available online then study managers were contacted to provide information. Results Over two-thirds (72.4%) of studies said in their protocol that they would include an internal pilot phase for their study and 37.8% of studies without an internal pilot had done an external pilot study to assess the feasibility of the full study. A typical study with an internal pilot has a target sample size of 510 over 24 months and aims to recruit one-fifth of their total target sample size within the first one-third of their recruitment time. There has been an increase in studies adopting a three-tiered structure for their progression rules in recent years, with 61.5% (16/26) of studies using the system in 2016 compared to just 11.8% (2/17) in 2015. There was also a rise in the number of studies giving a target recruitment rate in their progression criteria: 42.3% (11/26) in 2016 compared to 35.3% (6/17) in 2015. Conclusions Progression criteria for an internal pilot are usually well specified but targets vary widely. For the actual criteria, red/amber/green systems have increased in popularity in recent years. Trials should justify the targets they have set, especially where targets are low.http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13063-019-3578-yInternal pilotAuditFeasibilityRecruitment
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Esther Herbert
Steven A. Julious
Steve Goodacre
spellingShingle Esther Herbert
Steven A. Julious
Steve Goodacre
Progression criteria in trials with an internal pilot: an audit of publicly funded randomised controlled trials
Trials
Internal pilot
Audit
Feasibility
Recruitment
author_facet Esther Herbert
Steven A. Julious
Steve Goodacre
author_sort Esther Herbert
title Progression criteria in trials with an internal pilot: an audit of publicly funded randomised controlled trials
title_short Progression criteria in trials with an internal pilot: an audit of publicly funded randomised controlled trials
title_full Progression criteria in trials with an internal pilot: an audit of publicly funded randomised controlled trials
title_fullStr Progression criteria in trials with an internal pilot: an audit of publicly funded randomised controlled trials
title_full_unstemmed Progression criteria in trials with an internal pilot: an audit of publicly funded randomised controlled trials
title_sort progression criteria in trials with an internal pilot: an audit of publicly funded randomised controlled trials
publisher BMC
series Trials
issn 1745-6215
publishDate 2019-08-01
description Abstract Background With millions of pounds spent annually on medical research in the UK, it is important that studies are spending funds wisely. Internal pilots offer the chance to stop a trial early if it becomes apparent that the study will not be able to recruit enough patients to show whether an intervention is clinically effective. This study aims to assess the use of internal pilots in individually randomised controlled trials funded by the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme and to summarise the progression criteria chosen in these trials. Methods Studies were identified from reports of the HTA committees’ funding decisions from 2012 to 2016. In total, 242 trials were identified of which 134 were eligible to be included in the audit. Protocols for the eligible studies were located on the NIHR Journals website, and if protocols were not available online then study managers were contacted to provide information. Results Over two-thirds (72.4%) of studies said in their protocol that they would include an internal pilot phase for their study and 37.8% of studies without an internal pilot had done an external pilot study to assess the feasibility of the full study. A typical study with an internal pilot has a target sample size of 510 over 24 months and aims to recruit one-fifth of their total target sample size within the first one-third of their recruitment time. There has been an increase in studies adopting a three-tiered structure for their progression rules in recent years, with 61.5% (16/26) of studies using the system in 2016 compared to just 11.8% (2/17) in 2015. There was also a rise in the number of studies giving a target recruitment rate in their progression criteria: 42.3% (11/26) in 2016 compared to 35.3% (6/17) in 2015. Conclusions Progression criteria for an internal pilot are usually well specified but targets vary widely. For the actual criteria, red/amber/green systems have increased in popularity in recent years. Trials should justify the targets they have set, especially where targets are low.
topic Internal pilot
Audit
Feasibility
Recruitment
url http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13063-019-3578-y
work_keys_str_mv AT estherherbert progressioncriteriaintrialswithaninternalpilotanauditofpubliclyfundedrandomisedcontrolledtrials
AT stevenajulious progressioncriteriaintrialswithaninternalpilotanauditofpubliclyfundedrandomisedcontrolledtrials
AT stevegoodacre progressioncriteriaintrialswithaninternalpilotanauditofpubliclyfundedrandomisedcontrolledtrials
_version_ 1724451976816623616