Methodological standards in the design and reporting of pilot and feasibility studies in emergency medicine literature: a systematic review.

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Onlak Ruangsomboon, João Pedro Lima, Mohamed Eltorki, Andrew Worster
{"title":"Methodological standards in the design and reporting of pilot and feasibility studies in emergency medicine literature: a systematic review.","authors":"Onlak Ruangsomboon, João Pedro Lima, Mohamed Eltorki, Andrew Worster","doi":"10.1136/bmjopen-2023-082648","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Pilot and feasibility studies are intended to ensure that subsequent randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are feasible, economical and rigorous, especially in a challenging research environment such as emergency medicine (EM). We aimed to evaluate the methodological quality in conducting and reporting randomised pilot and feasibility studies in the EM literature and propose recommendations to improve their quality.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Methodological systematic review.</p><p><strong>Data sources and eligibility: </strong>We searched MEDLINE and Embase (2018-29 September 2023) for pilot or feasibility RCTs published as full texts in the five top-ranked and other first-quartile EM journals according to Scimago.</p><p><strong>Data extraction and analysis: </strong>We assessed their methodological features and reporting quality primarily based on the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) extension.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 24 randomised trials identified as pilot (n=13), feasibility (n=3) or both (n=8) were included. At least one feasibility outcome was assessed in 9 trials (feasibility trials), while 15 others only focused on treatment efficacy (efficacy trials). Only three (12.5%) studies progressed to the main trials. Among 12 feasibility trials, 55.6% reported their outcomes with uncertainty estimates, and 33.3% had clear progression criteria. Efficacy trials tended to draw clinical implications on their results. Studies from the five top-ranked journals had better methodological and reporting quality than those from other first-quartile journals.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Main methodological concerns for pilot and feasibility studies in first-quartile EM literature include misconceptions, misuses and suboptimal design and reporting quality. These issues were more prominent in lower-ranked first-quartile journals. Our findings highlight the need for resources and training for researchers, journal editors and peer reviewers on the value, objectives and appropriate conduct of pilot and feasibility studies. The conceptual framework and standardised methodological components should be emphasised. EM journals should reinforce the reporting standards and support their publication. These actions can lead to more methodologically rigorous pilot and feasibility studies in EM.</p><p><strong>Prospero registration number: </strong>CRD42023468437.</p>","PeriodicalId":9158,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11555100/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-082648","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Pilot and feasibility studies are intended to ensure that subsequent randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are feasible, economical and rigorous, especially in a challenging research environment such as emergency medicine (EM). We aimed to evaluate the methodological quality in conducting and reporting randomised pilot and feasibility studies in the EM literature and propose recommendations to improve their quality.

Design: Methodological systematic review.

Data sources and eligibility: We searched MEDLINE and Embase (2018-29 September 2023) for pilot or feasibility RCTs published as full texts in the five top-ranked and other first-quartile EM journals according to Scimago.

Data extraction and analysis: We assessed their methodological features and reporting quality primarily based on the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) extension.

Results: A total of 24 randomised trials identified as pilot (n=13), feasibility (n=3) or both (n=8) were included. At least one feasibility outcome was assessed in 9 trials (feasibility trials), while 15 others only focused on treatment efficacy (efficacy trials). Only three (12.5%) studies progressed to the main trials. Among 12 feasibility trials, 55.6% reported their outcomes with uncertainty estimates, and 33.3% had clear progression criteria. Efficacy trials tended to draw clinical implications on their results. Studies from the five top-ranked journals had better methodological and reporting quality than those from other first-quartile journals.

Conclusion: Main methodological concerns for pilot and feasibility studies in first-quartile EM literature include misconceptions, misuses and suboptimal design and reporting quality. These issues were more prominent in lower-ranked first-quartile journals. Our findings highlight the need for resources and training for researchers, journal editors and peer reviewers on the value, objectives and appropriate conduct of pilot and feasibility studies. The conceptual framework and standardised methodological components should be emphasised. EM journals should reinforce the reporting standards and support their publication. These actions can lead to more methodologically rigorous pilot and feasibility studies in EM.

Prospero registration number: CRD42023468437.

急诊医学文献中试点和可行性研究的设计和报告方法标准:系统综述。
目的:试验性和可行性研究旨在确保后续随机对照试验(RCT)的可行性、经济性和严谨性,尤其是在急诊医学(EM)这样一个充满挑战的研究环境中。我们旨在对急诊医学文献中开展和报告随机试验和可行性研究的方法学质量进行评估,并提出提高其质量的建议:设计:方法学系统综述:我们检索了MEDLINE和Embase(2018年至2023年9月29日),根据Scimago检索了五种排名靠前的期刊和其他排名第一的EM期刊上全文发表的试验性或可行性RCT.数据提取和分析:我们主要根据试验报告综合标准(CONSORT)扩展版评估了这些试验的方法学特征和报告质量:共纳入了 24 项随机试验,这些试验被确定为试验性试验(13 项)、可行性试验(3 项)或两者兼有(8 项)。其中 9 项试验(可行性试验)至少评估了一项可行性结果,另外 15 项试验(疗效试验)只关注治疗效果。只有三项(12.5%)研究进入了主要试验阶段。在 12 项可行性试验中,55.6% 的试验报告了结果的不确定性估计,33.3% 的试验有明确的进展标准。疗效试验的结果往往具有临床意义。与其他排名第一的期刊相比,五种排名靠前的期刊的研究在方法学和报告质量上更胜一筹:第一档电磁学文献中的试验性和可行性研究在方法学方面的主要问题包括误解、误用以及设计和报告质量欠佳。这些问题在排名较低的第一档期刊中更为突出。我们的研究结果突出表明,有必要为研究人员、期刊编辑和同行评审人员提供资源和培训,让他们了解试验性和可行性研究的价值、目标和适当开展方式。应强调概念框架和标准化方法。EM 期刊应加强报告标准并支持其出版。Prospero 注册号:CRD42023468437。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMJ Open
BMJ Open MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
3.40%
发文量
4510
审稿时长
2-3 weeks
期刊介绍: BMJ Open is an online, open access journal, dedicated to publishing medical research from all disciplines and therapeutic areas. The journal publishes all research study types, from study protocols to phase I trials to meta-analyses, including small or specialist studies. Publishing procedures are built around fully open peer review and continuous publication, publishing research online as soon as the article is ready.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信