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, Shaun Treweek, Miriam Brazzelli, 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.
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.