Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Value of surgical pilot and feasibility study protocols.
Fairhurst, K; Blazeby, J M; Potter, S; Gamble, C; Rowlands, C; Avery, K N L.
Afiliação
  • Fairhurst K; Centre for Surgical Research and Medical Research Council (MRC) ConDuCT-II Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Department of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
  • Blazeby JM; Centre for Surgical Research and Medical Research Council (MRC) ConDuCT-II Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Department of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
  • Potter S; Centre for Surgical Research and Medical Research Council (MRC) ConDuCT-II Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Department of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
  • Gamble C; MRC North West Hub for Trials Methodology Research, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
  • Rowlands C; Centre for Surgical Research and Medical Research Council (MRC) ConDuCT-II Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Department of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
  • Avery KNL; Centre for Surgical Research and Medical Research Council (MRC) ConDuCT-II Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Department of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Br J Surg ; 106(8): 968-978, 2019 07.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31074503
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

RCTs in surgery are challenging owing to well established methodological issues. Well designed pilot and feasibility studies (PFS) may help overcome such issues to inform successful main trial design and conduct. This study aimed to analyse protocols of UK-funded studies to explore current use of PFS in surgery and identify areas for practice improvement.

METHODS:

PFS of surgical interventions funded by UK National Institute for Health Research programmes from 2005 to 2015 were identified, and original study protocols and associated publications sourced. Data extracted included study design characteristics, reasons for performing the work including perceived uncertainties around conducting a definitive main trial, and whether the studies had been published.

RESULTS:

Thirty-five surgical studies were identified, of which 29 were randomized, and over half (15 of 29) included additional methodological components (such as qualitative work examining recruitment, and participant surveys studying current interventions). Most studies focused on uncertainties around recruitment (32 of 35), with far fewer tackling uncertainties specific to surgery, such as intervention stability, implementation or delivery (10 of 35). Only half (19 of 35) had made their results available publicly, to date.

CONCLUSION:

The full potential of pretrial work to inform and optimize definitive surgical studies is not being realized.
Assuntos

Texto completo: 1 Eixos temáticos: Pesquisa_clinica Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Operatórios / Projetos Piloto / Estudos de Viabilidade / Ensaios Clínicos como Assunto Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Guideline / Prognostic_studies / Qualitative_research Limite: Humans País como assunto: Europa Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2019 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Eixos temáticos: Pesquisa_clinica Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Operatórios / Projetos Piloto / Estudos de Viabilidade / Ensaios Clínicos como Assunto Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Guideline / Prognostic_studies / Qualitative_research Limite: Humans País como assunto: Europa Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2019 Tipo de documento: Article