Exploring the perspectives of selectors and collecters of trial outcome data: an international qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Selecting and collecting data to support appropriate primary and secondary outcomes is a critical step in designing trials that can change clinical practice. In this study, we aimed to investigate who contributes to the process of selecting and collecting trial outcomes, and how these people are involved. This work serves two main purposes: (1) it provides the trials community with evidence to demonstrate how outcomes are currently selected and collected, and (2) it allows people involved in trial design and conduct to pick apart these processes to consider how efficiencies and improvements can be made. METHODS: One-with-one semi-structured interviews, supported by a topic guide to ensure coverage of key content. The Framework approach was used for thematic analysis of data, and themes were linked through constant comparison of data both within and across participant groups. Interviews took place between July 2020 and January 2021. Participants were twenty-nine international trialists from various contributor groups, working primarily on designing and/or delivering phase III pragmatic effectiveness trials. Their experience spanned various funders, trial settings, clinical specialties, intervention types, and participant populations. RESULTS: We identified three descriptive themes encompassing the process of primary and secondary outcome selection, collection, and the publication of outcome data. Within these themes, participants raised issues around the following: 1) Outcome selection: clarity of the research question; confidence in selecting trial outcomes and how confidence decreases with increased experience; interplay between different interested parties; how patients and the public are involved in outcome selection; perceived impact of poor outcome selection including poor recruitment and/or retention; and use of core outcome sets. 2) Outcome collection: disconnect between decisions made by outcome selectors and the practical work done by outcome collectors; potential impact of outcome measures on trial participants; potential impact on trial staff workload; and use of routinely collected data. 3) Publication of outcome data: difficulties in finding time to write and revise manuscripts for publication due to time and funding constraints. Participants overwhelmingly focused on the process of outcome selection, a topic they talked about unprompted. When prompted, participants do discuss outcome collection, but poor communication between selectors and collectors at the trial design stage means that outcome selection is rarely linked with the data collection workload it generates. DISCUSSION: People involved in the design and conduct of trials fail to connect decisions around outcome selection with data collection workload. Publication of outcome data and effective dissemination of trial results are hindered due to the project-based culture of some academic clinical trial research.

A good use of time? Providing evidence for how effort is invested in primary and secondary outcome data collection in trials.

BACKGROUND: Data collection is a substantial part of trial workload for participants and staff alike. How these hours of work are spent is important because stakeholders are more interested in some outcomes than others. The ORINOCO study compared the time spent collecting primary outcome data to the time spent collecting secondary outcome data in a cohort of trials. METHODS: We searched PubMed for phase III trials indexed between 2015 and 2019. From these, we randomly selected 120 trials evaluating a therapeutic intervention plus an additional random selection of 20 trials evaluating a public health intervention. We also added eligible trials from a cohort of 189 trials in rheumatology that had used the same core outcome set. We then obtained the time taken to collect primary and secondary outcomes in each trial. We used a hierarchy of methods that included data in trial reports, contacting the trial team and approaching individuals with experience of using the identified outcome measures. We calculated the primary to secondary data collection time ratio and notional data collection cost for each included trial. RESULTS: We included 161 trials (120 phase III; 21 core outcome set; 20 public health), which together collected 230 primary and 688 secondary outcomes. Full primary and secondary timing data were obtained for 134 trials (100 phase III; 17 core outcome set; 17 public health). The median time spent on primaries was 56.1 h (range: 0.0-10,746.7, IQR: 226.89) and the median time spent on secondaries was 190.7 hours (range: 0.0-1,356,832.9, IQR: 617.6). The median primary to secondary data collection time ratio was 1.0:3.0 (i.e. for every minute spent on primary outcomes, 3.0 were spent on secondaries). The ratio varied by trial type: phase III trials were 1.0:3.1, core outcome set 1.0:3.4 and public health trials 1.0:2.2. The median notional overall data collection cost was £8015.73 (range: £52.90-£31,899,140.70, IQR: £20,096.64). CONCLUSIONS: Depending on trial type, between two and three times as much time is spent collecting secondary outcome data than collecting primary outcome data. Trial teams should explicitly consider how long it will take to collect the data for an outcome and decide whether that time is worth it given importance of the outcome to the trial.

Perioperative oxygen therapy: a protocol for an overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

BACKGROUND: Oxygen is routinely given to patients during and after surgery. Perioperative oxygen administration has been proposed as a potential strategy to prevent and treat hypoxaemia and reduce complications, such as surgical site infections, pulmonary complications and mortality. However, uncertainty exists as to which strategies in terms of amount, delivery devices and timing are clinically effective. The aim of this overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses is to answer the research question, 'For which types of surgery, at which stages of care, in which sub-groups of patients and delivered under what conditions are different types of perioperative oxygen therapy clinically effective?'. METHODS: We will search key electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CENTRAL, Epistemonikos, PROSPERO, the INAHTA International HTA Database and DARE archives) for systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials comparing perioperative oxygen strategies. Each review will be mapped according to type of surgery, surgical pathway timepoints and clinical comparison. The highest quality reviews with the most comprehensive and up-to-date coverage of relevant literature will be chosen as anchoring reviews. Standardised data will be extracted from each chosen review, including definition of oxygen therapy, summaries of interventions and comparators, patient population, surgical characteristics and assessment of overall certainty of evidence. For clinical outcomes and adverse events, the overall pooled findings and results of subgroup and sensitivity analyses (where available) will be extracted. Trial-level data will be extracted for surgical site infections, mortality, and potential trial-level effect modifiers such as risk of bias, outcome definition and type of surgery to facilitate quantitative data analysis. This analysis will adopt a multiple indication review approach with panoramic meta-analysis using review-level data and meta-regression using trial-level data. An evidence map will be produced to summarise our findings and highlight any research gaps. DISCUSSION: There is a need to provide a panoramic overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses describing peri-operative oxygen practice to both inform clinical practice and identify areas of ongoing uncertainty, where further research may be required. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021272361.

Using qualitative methods in pilot and feasibility trials to inform recruitment and retention processes in full-scale randomised trials: a qualitative evidence synthesis.

OBJECTIVES: To systematically review published pretrial qualitative research studies and explore how their findings were used to inform recruitment and retention processes in full-scale trials. DESIGN: Qualitative evidence synthesis using thematic analysis. DATA SOURCES AND ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We conducted a comprehensive search of databases; Dissertation Abstracts International, CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, Sociological Abstracts and PsycINFO. We included all reports of pretrial qualitative data on recruitment and retention in clinical trials up to March 2018. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two authors independently extracted data using a predefined data extraction form that captured study aims, design, methodological approach and main findings, including barriers and facilitators to recruitment and or retention. The synthesis was undertaken using Thomas and Harden's thematic synthesis method and reported following the Enhancing Transparency in Reporting the Synthesis of Qualitative Research guidelines. Confidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research approach. RESULTS: Thirty-five papers (connected to 31 feasibility studies) from three different countries, published between 2010 and 2017 were included. All studies were embedded in pilot or feasibility studies to inform design aspects in preparation for a subsequent full-scale trial. Twelve themes were identified as recruitment barriers and three as recruitment facilitators. Two themes were identified as barriers for retention and none as retention facilitators. The findings from qualitative research in feasibility or pilot trials are often not explicitly linked to proposed changes to the recruitment and retention strategies to be used in the future or planned full-scale trial. CONCLUSIONS: Many trial teams do pretrial qualitative work with the aim of improving recruitment and retention in future full-scale trials. Just over half of all reports of such work do not clearly show how their findings will change the recruitment and retention strategy of the future trial. The scope of pretrial work needs to expand beyond looking for problems and also look for what might help and spend more time on retention.

Biomechanical adaptation to post-stroke visual field loss: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Homonymous visual field defects represent the most frequent type of visual field loss after stroke, affecting nearly 30% of individuals with unilateral post-chiasmal brain damage. This review aimed to gather the available evidence on the biomechanical changes to visual field loss following stroke. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted inclusive of randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, before-after studies and case-controlled studies. Studies including adult and paediatric participants that investigated eye, head, or body movements in post-stroke visual field loss during visual exploration tasks were included. Search terms included a range of MESH terms as well as alternative terms relating to stroke, visual field loss, hemianopia, visual functions and scanning behaviour. Articles were selected by two authors independently. Data were extracted by one author and verified by a second. All included articles were assessed for risk of bias using checklists appropriate to the study design. RESULTS: Thirty-six articles (1123 participants) were included in the overall review (Kappa 0.863) and categorised into simulated or true visual field loss (typically hemianopia). Seven studies identified the biomechanical alterations to simulated hemianopia compared to normal performance. Twenty-nine studies detailed eye, head and body movement parameters in true hemianopia. Hemianopic participants and healthy adults with simulated hemianopia differed significantly from controls in various fixation and saccade parameters as indicated by increased number and duration of fixations, number and duration of saccades and scan path length with shorter mean saccadic amplitude. Under simulated hemianopia, participants were consistently biased towards the sighted visual field while gaze behaviour in true hemianopia was biased in the direction of the blind hemifield. CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable evidence on the altered eye movements that occur in true hemianopia and in healthy adults with simulated hemianopia. Successful performance in naturalistic tasks of visual exploration appears to be related to compensatory mechanisms of visual exploratory behaviour, namely, an increase in the amplitude and peak velocity of saccades, widening horizontally the distribution of eye movements, and a shift of the overall distribution of saccades into the blind field. This review highlights the lack of studies reporting head and other body movement parameters in hemianopia. Further studies with robust methodology and large sample sizes involving participants with post-stroke visual field loss are needed. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020194403.

Non-randomised evaluations of strategies to increase participant retention in randomised controlled trials: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Retention of participants is essential to ensure the statistical power and internal validity of clinical trials. Poor participant retention reduces power and can bias the estimates of intervention effect. There is sparse evidence from randomised comparisons of effective strategies to retain participants in randomised trials. Currently, non-randomised evaluations of trial retention interventions embedded in host clinical trials are rejected from the Cochrane review of strategies to improve retention because it only included randomised evaluations. However, the systematic assessment of non-randomised evaluations may inform trialists' decision-making about retention methods that have been evaluated in a trial context.Therefore, we performed a systematic review to synthesise evidence from non-randomised evaluations of retention strategies in order to supplement existing randomised trial evidence. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL from 2007 to October 2017. Two reviewers independently screened abstracts and full-text articles for non-randomised studies that compared two or more strategies to increase participant retention in randomised trials. The retention trials had to be nested in real 'host' trials ( including feasibility studies) but not hypothetical trials. Two investigators independently rated the risk of bias of included studies using the ROBINS-I tool and determined the certainty of evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) framework. RESULTS: Fourteen non-randomised studies of retention were included in this review. Most retention strategies (in 10 studies) aimed to increase questionnaire response rate. Favourable strategies for increasing questionnaire response rate were telephone follow-up compared to postal questionnaire completion, online questionnaire follow-up compared to postal questionnaire, shortened version of questionnaires versus longer questionnaires, electronically transferred monetary incentives compared to cash incentives, cash compared with no incentive and reminders to non-responders (telephone or text messaging). However, each retention strategy was evaluated in a single observational study. This, together with risk of bias concerns, meant that the overall GRADE certainty was low or very low for all included studies. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review provides low or very low certainty evidence on the effectiveness of retention strategies evaluated in non-randomised studies. Some strategies need further evaluation to provide confidence around the size and direction of the underlying effect.