Improving Trial Informativeness: A Rapid Review of Global Research on How to Ensure Trials Are Useful

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Sarah R. Prowse, Shaun Treweek, Miriam Brazzelli, Hanne Bruhn
{"title":"Improving Trial Informativeness: A Rapid Review of Global Research on How to Ensure Trials Are Useful","authors":"Sarah R. Prowse,&nbsp;Shaun Treweek,&nbsp;Miriam Brazzelli,&nbsp;Hanne Bruhn","doi":"10.1111/jep.70147","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Rationale</h3>\n \n <p>Randomised controlled trials are considered the ‘gold standard’ in clinical research and decision-making. However, many trials have significant flaws that current review processes fail to identify early enough for corrections to be made. Flaws in trial design, conduct and reporting ultimately lead to research waste. This rapid review provides insights from global research aimed at improving trial ‘informativeness’ as described by Zarin and colleagues.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>A rapid review was conducted with a focus on research addressing trial design processes that might improve informativeness aligned with one or more of the five key conditions outlined by Zarin and colleagues: 1) Importance, 2) Design, 3) Feasibility, 4) Integrity and 5) Reporting. A further thematic analysis was conducted using NVivo 12.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The final review includes 42 texts. Of the 27 recommended processes or actions to improve trial informativeness, most were relevant to the second condition of trial design (2) Design; 44%). A key recommendation was the use of ‘tools’ to enhance trial informativeness. A total of 23 tools were identified across the conditions of 1) Importance (17%), 2) Design (74%) and 5) Reporting (9%).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>This review highlights how a better understanding of design processes that lead to informative trials can reduce or eliminate research waste. Further research is needed on how these processes can better support pre-funding peer review, which would also increase the likelihood of producing informative trials.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":"31 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jep.70147","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jep.70147","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Rationale

Randomised controlled trials are considered the ‘gold standard’ in clinical research and decision-making. However, many trials have significant flaws that current review processes fail to identify early enough for corrections to be made. Flaws in trial design, conduct and reporting ultimately lead to research waste. This rapid review provides insights from global research aimed at improving trial ‘informativeness’ as described by Zarin and colleagues.

Methods

A rapid review was conducted with a focus on research addressing trial design processes that might improve informativeness aligned with one or more of the five key conditions outlined by Zarin and colleagues: 1) Importance, 2) Design, 3) Feasibility, 4) Integrity and 5) Reporting. A further thematic analysis was conducted using NVivo 12.

Results

The final review includes 42 texts. Of the 27 recommended processes or actions to improve trial informativeness, most were relevant to the second condition of trial design (2) Design; 44%). A key recommendation was the use of ‘tools’ to enhance trial informativeness. A total of 23 tools were identified across the conditions of 1) Importance (17%), 2) Design (74%) and 5) Reporting (9%).

Conclusion

This review highlights how a better understanding of design processes that lead to informative trials can reduce or eliminate research waste. Further research is needed on how these processes can better support pre-funding peer review, which would also increase the likelihood of producing informative trials.

Abstract Image

提高试验信息:如何确保试验有用的全球研究的快速回顾
基本原理:随机对照试验被认为是临床研究和决策的“黄金标准”。然而,许多试验存在重大缺陷,目前的审查程序未能及早发现这些缺陷,从而无法进行纠正。试验设计、实施和报告中的缺陷最终会导致研究浪费。这一快速回顾提供了Zarin及其同事所描述的旨在提高试验“信息性”的全球研究的见解。方法快速回顾了针对试验设计过程的研究,这些研究可能会提高符合Zarin及其同事概述的五个关键条件中的一个或多个:1)重要性,2)设计,3)可行性,4)完整性和5)报告性。使用NVivo 12进行了进一步的专题分析。结果最终纳入42篇文献。在27个改善试验信息的推荐过程或措施中,大多数与试验设计的第二个条件有关(2)设计;44%)。一个关键的建议是使用“工具”来增强试验的信息量。在1)重要性(17%),2)设计(74%)和5)报告(9%)的条件下,共确定了23种工具。这篇综述强调了如何更好地理解设计过程,从而导致信息性试验可以减少或消除研究浪费。需要进一步研究这些过程如何更好地支持资助前的同行评议,这也将增加产生翔实试验的可能性。
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
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
4.20%
发文量
143
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice aims to promote the evaluation and development of clinical practice across medicine, nursing and the allied health professions. All aspects of health services research and public health policy analysis and debate are of interest to the Journal whether studied from a population-based or individual patient-centred perspective. Of particular interest to the Journal are submissions on all aspects of clinical effectiveness and efficiency including evidence-based medicine, clinical practice guidelines, clinical decision making, clinical services organisation, implementation and delivery, health economic evaluation, health process and outcome measurement and new or improved methods (conceptual and statistical) for systematic inquiry into clinical practice. Papers may take a classical quantitative or qualitative approach to investigation (or may utilise both techniques) or may take the form of learned essays, structured/systematic reviews and critiques.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信