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
  • [31] General practice research priority setting in Australia Informing a research agenda to deliver best patient care
    Heal, Clare
    Roberts, Gail
    [J]. AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF GENERAL PRACTICE, 2019, 48 (11) : 789 - 795
  • [32] General practice research priority setting in Australia: informing a research agenda to deliver best patient care
    Heal, Clare
    Roberts, Gail
    [J]. AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF PRIMARY HEALTH, 2020, 26 (04) : XVIII - XVIII
  • [33] A health equity research agenda for India: results of a consultative exercise
    Ravindran, T. K. Sundari
    Seshadri, Tanya
    [J]. HEALTH RESEARCH POLICY AND SYSTEMS, 2018, 16
  • [34] A health equity research agenda for India: results of a consultative exercise
    T.K. Sundari Ravindran
    Tanya Seshadri
    [J]. Health Research Policy and Systems, 16
  • [35] Latino recruitment to cancer prevention/screening trials in the Southwest: setting a research agenda
    Larkey, Linda K.
    Ogden, Sheryl L.
    Tenorio, Sally
    Ewell, Teresa
    [J]. APPLIED NURSING RESEARCH, 2008, 21 (01) : 30 - 39
  • [36] PUBLIC PRIORITY SETTING FOR RESEARCH IN OSTEOPOROSIS AND FRACTURE: RESULTS FROM A NATIONAL E-SURVEY
    Paskins, Zoe
    Jinks, Clare
    Mahmood, Waheed
    Jayakumar, Prakash
    Sangan, Caroline
    Belcher, John
    Gwilym, Stephen
    [J]. OSTEOPOROSIS INTERNATIONAL, 2016, 27 : 629 - 629
  • [37] Research priorities for stillbirth: process overview and results from UK Stillbirth Priority Setting Partnership
    Heazell, A. E. P.
    Whitworth, M. K.
    Whitcombe, J.
    Glover, S. W.
    Bevan, C.
    Brewin, J.
    Calderwood, C.
    Canter, A.
    Jessop, F.
    Johnson, G.
    Martin, I.
    Metcalf, L.
    [J]. ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, 2015, 46 (06) : 641 - 647
  • [38] The Trials within Cohorts design faced methodological advantages and disadvantages in the exercise oncology setting
    Gal, Roxanne
    Monninkhof, Evelyn M.
    van Gils, Carla H.
    Groenwold, Rolf H. H.
    van den Bongard, Desiree H. J. G.
    Peeters, Petra H. M.
    Verkooijen, Helena M.
    May, Anne M.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2019, 113 : 137 - 146
  • [39] Research priorities regarding the use of bisphosphonates for osteoporosis: a UK priority setting exercise
    Paskins, Zoe
    Moult, Alice
    Corp, Nadia
    Bastounis, Anastasios
    Davis, Sarah
    Narayanasamy, Melanie Jay
    Griffin, Jill
    Gittoes, Neil
    Leonardi-Bee, Jo
    Langley, Tessa
    Bishop, Simon
    Sahota, Opinder
    [J]. OSTEOPOROSIS INTERNATIONAL, 2023, 34 (10) : 1711 - 1718
  • [40] RESEARCH PRIORITIES REGARDING THE USE OF BISPHOSPHONATES FOR OSTEOPOROSIS: A UK PRIORITY SETTING EXERCISE
    Paskins, Zoe
    Moult, Alice
    Corp, Nadia
    Bastounis, Anastasios
    Davis, Sarah
    Narayanasamy, Melanie Jay
    Griffin, Jill
    Gittoes, Neil
    Leonardi-Bee, Jo
    Langley, Tessa
    Bishop, Simon
    Sahota, Opinder
    [J]. RHEUMATOLOGY, 2023, 62