The trials methodological research agenda: results from a priority setting exercise

被引:103
|
作者
Smith, Catrin Tudur [1 ]
Hickey, Helen [1 ]
Clarke, Mike [2 ]
Blazeby, Jane [3 ]
Williamson, Paula [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Liverpool, Dept Biostat, North West Hub Trials Methodol Res, Liverpool L69 3BX, Merseyside, England
[2] Queens Univ Belfast, All Ireland Hub Trials Methodol Res, Belfast BT7 1NN, Antrim, North Ireland
[3] Univ Bristol, Sch Social & Community Med, Collaborat & Innovat Difficult Complex Randomised, Bristol, Avon, England
来源
TRIALS | 2014年 / 15卷
基金
英国医学研究理事会;
关键词
Trials methodology; Priority setting; WORKSHOP; OUTCOMES;
D O I
10.1186/1745-6215-15-32
中图分类号
R-3 [医学研究方法]; R3 [基础医学];
学科分类号
1001 ;
摘要
Background: Research into the methods used in the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of clinical trials is essential to ensure that effective methods are available and that clinical decisions made using results from trials are based on the best available evidence, which is reliable and robust. Methods: An on-line Delphi survey of 48 UK Clinical Research Collaboration registered Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) was undertaken. During round one, CTU Directors were asked to identify important topics that require methodological research. During round two, their opinion about the level of importance of each topic was recorded, and during round three, they were asked to review the group's average opinion and revise their previous opinion if appropriate. Direct reminders were sent to maximise the number of responses at each round. Results are summarised using descriptive methods. Results: Forty one (85%) CTU Directors responded to at least one round of the Delphi process: 25 (52%) responded in round one, 32 (67%) responded in round two, 24 (50%) responded in round three. There were only 12 (25%) who responded to all three rounds and 18 (38%) who responded to both rounds two and three. Consensus was achieved amongst CTU Directors that the top three priorities for trials methodological research were 'Research into methods to boost recruitment in trials' (considered the highest priority), 'Methods to minimise attrition' and 'Choosing appropriate outcomes to measure'. Fifty other topics were included in the list of priorities and consensus was reached that two topics, 'Radiotherapy study designs' and 'Low carbon trials', were not priorities. Conclusions: This priority setting exercise has identified the research topics felt to be most important to the key stakeholder group of Directors of UKCRC registered CTUs. The use of robust methodology to identify these priorities will help ensure that this work informs the trials methodological research agenda, with a focus on topics that will have most impact and relevance.
引用
收藏
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] The trials methodological research agenda: results from a priority setting exercise
    Catrin Tudur Smith
    Helen Hickey
    Mike Clarke
    Jane Blazeby
    Paula Williamson
    [J]. Trials, 15
  • [2] Global health trials methodological research agenda: results from a priority setting exercise
    Rosala-Hallas, Anna
    Bhangu, Aneel
    Blazeby, Jane
    Bowman, Louise
    Clarke, Mike
    Lang, Trudie
    Nasser, Mona
    Siegfried, Nandi
    Soares-Weiser, Karla
    Sydes, Matt R.
    Wang, Duolao
    Zhang, Junhua
    Williamson, Paula R.
    [J]. TRIALS, 2018, 19
  • [3] Global health trials methodological research agenda: results from a priority setting exercise
    Anna Rosala-Hallas
    Aneel Bhangu
    Jane Blazeby
    Louise Bowman
    Mike Clarke
    Trudie Lang
    Mona Nasser
    Nandi Siegfried
    Karla Soares-Weiser
    Matt R. Sydes
    Duolao Wang
    Junhua Zhang
    Paula R. Williamson
    [J]. Trials, 19
  • [4] Advancing Diagnostic Safety Research: Results of a Systematic Research Priority Setting Exercise
    Laura Zwaan
    Robert El-Kareh
    Ashley N. D. Meyer
    Jacky Hooftman
    Hardeep Singh
    [J]. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 2021, 36 : 2943 - 2951
  • [5] Advancing Diagnostic Safety Research: Results of a Systematic Research Priority Setting Exercise
    Zwaan, Laura
    El-Kareh, Robert
    Meyer, Ashley N. D.
    Hooftman, Jacky
    Singh, Hardeep
    [J]. JOURNAL OF GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2021, 36 (10) : 2943 - 2951
  • [6] A global research agenda for family planning: results of an exercise for setting research priorities
    Ali, Moazzam
    Seuc, Armando
    Rahimi, Asma
    Festina, Mario
    Temmerman, Marleen
    [J]. BULLETIN OF THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION, 2014, 92 (02) : 93 - 98
  • [7] Severity as a Priority Setting Criterion: Setting a Challenging Research Agenda
    Mathias Barra
    Mari Broqvist
    Erik Gustavsson
    Martin Henriksson
    Niklas Juth
    Lars Sandman
    Carl Tollef Solberg
    [J]. Health Care Analysis, 2020, 28 : 25 - 44
  • [8] Severity as a Priority Setting Criterion: Setting a Challenging Research Agenda
    Barra, Mathias
    Broqvist, Mari
    Gustavsson, Erik
    Henriksson, Martin
    Juth, Niklas
    Sandman, Lars
    Solberg, Carl Tollef
    [J]. HEALTH CARE ANALYSIS, 2020, 28 (01) : 25 - 44
  • [9] Supporting ageing well research: Findings from a research priority setting exercise
    Doolan-Noble, Fiona
    Mehta, Poonam
    Waters, Debra
    Baxter, George David
    [J]. AUSTRALASIAN JOURNAL ON AGEING, 2019, 38 (02) : 136 - 143
  • [10] Priority setting for school nutrition research: developing a collaborative research agenda
    Michelle M. Vine
    Scott T. Leatherdale
    Rachel E. Laxer
    [J]. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 2020, 111 : 1020 - 1023