Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Trials
Published in: Trials 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Methodology

Making randomised trials more efficient: report of the first meeting to discuss the Trial Forge platform

Authors: Shaun Treweek, Doug G. Altman, Peter Bower, Marion Campbell, Iain Chalmers, Seonaidh Cotton, Peter Craig, David Crosby, Peter Davidson, Declan Devane, Lelia Duley, Janet Dunn, Diana Elbourne, Barbara Farrell, Carrol Gamble, Katie Gillies, Kerry Hood, Trudie Lang, Roberta Littleford, Kirsty Loudon, Alison McDonald, Gladys McPherson, Annmarie Nelson, John Norrie, Craig Ramsay, Peter Sandercock, Daniel R Shanahan, William Summerskill, Matt Sydes, Paula Williamson, Mike Clarke

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Randomised trials are at the heart of evidence-based healthcare, but the methods and infrastructure for conducting these sometimes complex studies are largely evidence free. Trial Forge (www.​trialforge.​org) is an initiative that aims to increase the evidence base for trial decision making and, in doing so, to improve trial efficiency.
This paper summarises a one-day workshop held in Edinburgh on 10 July 2014 to discuss Trial Forge and how to advance this initiative. We first outline the problem of inefficiency in randomised trials and go on to describe Trial Forge. We present participants’ views on the processes in the life of a randomised trial that should be covered by Trial Forge.
General support existed at the workshop for the Trial Forge approach to increase the evidence base for making randomised trial decisions and for improving trial efficiency. Agreed upon key processes included choosing the right research question; logistical planning for delivery, training of staff, recruitment, and retention; data management and dissemination; and close down. The process of linking to existing initiatives where possible was considered crucial. Trial Forge will not be a guideline or a checklist but a ‘go to’ website for research on randomised trials methods, with a linked programme of applied methodology research, coupled to an effective evidence-dissemination process. Moreover, it will support an informal network of interested trialists who meet virtually (online) and occasionally in person to build capacity and knowledge in the design and conduct of efficient randomised trials.
Some of the resources invested in randomised trials are wasted because of limited evidence upon which to base many aspects of design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of clinical trials. Trial Forge will help to address this lack of evidence.
Literature
1.
Gheorghiade M, Vaduganathan M, Greene SJ, Mentz RJ, Adams Jr KF, Anker SD, et al. Site selection in global clinical trials in patients hospitalized for heart failure: perceived problems and potential solutions. Heart Fail Rev. 2014;19:135–52.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
2.
Ghersi D, Pang T. From Mexico to Mali: Four years in the history of clinical trial registration. J Evid Base Med. 2009;2:1–7.CrossRef
3.
4.
5.
6.
Salman RAS, Beller E, Kagan J, Hemminki E, Phillips RS, Savulescu J, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research regulation and management. Lancet. 2014;383:176–85.CrossRefPubMedCentral
7.
Treweek S, Mitchell E, Pitkethly M, Cook J, Kjeldstrøm M, Johansen M, et al. Methods to improve recruitment to randomised controlled trials: Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2013;3, e002360.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
Brueton VC, Tierney J, Stenning S, Harding S, Meredith S, Nazareth I, Rait G. (2013) Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2013; 12:MR000032.
9.
Sully BGO, Julious SA, Nicholl J. A reinvestigation of recruitment to randomised, controlled, multicenter trials: A review of trials funded by two UK funding agencies. Trials. 2013;14:166.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
O’Leary E, Seow H, Julian J, Levine M, Pond GR. Data collection in cancer clinical trials: Too much of a good thing? Clinical Trials. 2013;10:624–32.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Marcano Belisario JS, Huckvale K, Saje A, Porcnik A, Morrison CP, Car J. Comparison of self administered survey questionnaire responses collected using mobile apps versus other methods (Protocol), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2014; MR000042.
12.
Saini P, Loke YK, Gamble C, Altman DG, Williamson PR, Kirkham JJ. Selective reporting bias of harm outcomes within studies: findings from a cohort of systematic reviews. BMJ. 2014;349:g6501–1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
Vera-Badillo FE, Shapiro R, Ocana A, Amir E, Tannock IF. Bias in reporting of end points of efficacy and toxicity in randomized, clinical trials for women with breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2013;24:1238–44.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Habre C, Tramer MR, Popping DM, Elia N. Ability of a meta-analysis to prevent redundant research: systematic review of studies on pain from propofol injection. BMJ. 2014;349:g5219–9.CrossRefPubMedCentral
15.
Sinha IP, Altman DG, Beresford MW, Boers M, Clarke M, Craig J, et al. Selection, measurement, and reporting of outcomes in clinical trials in children. Pediatrics. 2012;129:S146–52.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Saunders C, Byrne CD, Guthrie B, Lindsay RS, McKnight JA, Philip S, et al. External validity of randomized controlled trials of glycaemic control and vascular disease: how representative are participants? Diabet Med. 2013;30:300–8.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Chalmers I, Bracken MB, Djulbegovic B, Garattini S, Grant J, Gülmezoglu AM, et al. How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet. 2014;383:156–65.CrossRefPubMed
18.
19.
Rothwell PM. Treating individuals 1: External validity of randomised controlled trials:“To whom do the results of this trial apply?.”. Lancet. 2005; 365:82–93
20.
Clarke M, Brice A, Chalmers I. Accumulating research: A systematic account of how cumulative meta-analyses would have provided knowledge, improved health reduced harm and saved resources. PLoS ONE. 2014;9, e102670.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
Schwartz D, Lellouch J. Explanatory and pragmatic attitudes in therapeutical trials. J Chronic Dis. 1967;20:637–48.CrossRefPubMed
22.
23.
Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet. 2009;374:86–9.CrossRefPubMed
24.
25.
Booth A, Papaioannou D, Sutton A. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review. London: Sage Publications; 2012.
26.
27.
Doyle LH. Synthesis through meta-ethnography: paradoxes, enhancements, and possibilities. Qual Res. 2003;3:21–4.CrossRef
28.
29.
Gargon E, Williamson PR, Altman DG, Blazeby JM, Clarke M. The COMET Initiative database: progress and activities from 2011 to 2013. Trials. 2014;15:279.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
30.
Gargon E, Gurung B, Medley N, Altman DG, Blazeby JM, Clarke M, et al. Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: a systematic review. PLoS ONE. 2014;9, e99111.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
31.
Chalmers I, Nylenna M. A new network to promote evidence-based research. Lancet. 2014;384:1903–4.CrossRefPubMed
32.
33.
Glenton C, Santesso N, Rosenbaum S, Nilsen ES, Rader T, Ciapponi A, et al. Presenting the results of cochrane systematic reviews to a consumer audience: a qualitative study. Med Decis Making. 2010;30:566–77.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Santesso N, Rader T, Nilsen ES, Glenton C, Rosenbaum S, Ciapponi A, et al. A summary to communicate evidence from systematic reviews to the public improved understanding and accessibility of information: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Epidemi. 2014;1–9.
35.
Rosenbaum SE, Glenton C, Oxman AD. Summary-of-findings tables in Cochrane reviews improved understanding and rapid retrieval of key information. J Clin Epidemi. 2010;63:620–6.CrossRef
36.
Donovan JL, Parmasivan S, de Salis I, Torrien M. Clear obstacles and hidden challenges: understanding recruiter perspectives in six pragmatic randomised controlled trials. Trials. 2014;15:5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
37.
Donovan JL, de Salis I, Toerien M, Paramasivan S, Hamdy FC, Blazeby JM. The intellectual challenges and emotional consequences of equipoise contributed to the fragility of recruitment in six randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemi. 2014;67:912–20.CrossRef
38.
Eborall HC, Dallosso HM, Daly H, Martin-Stacey L, Heller SR. The face of equipoise–delivering a structured education programme within a randomized controlled trial: qualitative study. Trials. 2014;15:15.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
39.
Garcia J, Elbourne D, Snowdon C. Equipoise: a case study of the views of clinicians involved in two neonatal trials. Clin Trials. 2004;1:170–8.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Graffy J, Grant J, Boase S, Ward E, Wallace P, Miller J, et al. UK research staff perspectives on improving recruitment and retention to primary care research; nominal group exercise. Fam Pract. 2009;26:48–55.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Hamilton DW, de Salis I, Donovan JL, Birchall M. The recruitment of patients to trials in head and neck cancer: a qualitative study of the EaStER trial of treatments for early laryngeal cancer. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2013;270:2333–7.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Howard L, de Salis I, Tomlin Z, Thornicroft G, Donovan J. Why is recruitment to trials difficult? An investigation into recruitment difficulties in an RCT of supported employment in patients with severe mental illness. Contemp Clin Trials. 2009;30:40–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
43.
Menon U, Gentry-Maharaj A, Ryan A, Sharma A, Burnell M, Hallett R, et al. Recruitment to multicentre trials–lessons from UKCTOCS: descriptive study. BMJ. 2008;337:a2079.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
44.
Paramasivan S, Huddart R, Hall E, Lewis R, Birtle A, Donovan JL. Key issues in recruitment to randomised controlled trials with very different interventions: a qualitative investigation of recruitment to the SPARE trial (CRUK/07/011). Trials. 2011;12:78.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
45.
Wade J, Donovan JL, Lane JA, Neal DE, Hamdy FC. It’s not just what you say, it’s also how you say it: opening the ‘black box’ of informed consent appointments in randomised controlled trials. Soc Sci Med. 2009;68:2018–28.CrossRefPubMed
46.
Smith V, Clarke M, Devane D, Begley C, Shorter G, Maguire L. SWAT 1: what effects do site visits by the principal investigator have on recruitment in a multicentre randomized trial? J Evid Base Med. 2013;6:136–7.CrossRef
47.
48.
Smith CT, Hickey H, Clarke M, Blazeby J, Williamson P. The trials methodological research agenda: results from a priority setting exercise. Trials. 2014;15:32.CrossRef
49.
Metadata
Title
Making randomised trials more efficient: report of the first meeting to discuss the Trial Forge platform
Authors
Shaun Treweek
Doug G. Altman
Peter Bower
Marion Campbell
Iain Chalmers
Seonaidh Cotton
Peter Craig
David Crosby
Peter Davidson
Declan Devane
Lelia Duley
Janet Dunn
Diana Elbourne
Barbara Farrell
Carrol Gamble
Katie Gillies
Kerry Hood
Trudie Lang
Roberta Littleford
Kirsty Loudon
Alison McDonald
Gladys McPherson
Annmarie Nelson
John Norrie
Craig Ramsay
Peter Sandercock
Daniel R Shanahan
William Summerskill
Matt Sydes
Paula Williamson
Mike Clarke
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-015-0776-0

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

Trials 1/2015 Go to the issue

Study protocol

Efficacy and safety of Ban-Lan-Gen granules in the treatment of seasonal influenza: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Study protocol

Investigating the effect of remote ischaemic preconditioning on biomarkers of stress and injury-related signalling in patients having isolated coronary artery bypass grafting or aortic valve replacement using cardiopulmonary bypass: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Study protocol

Oral versus intravenous antibiotic treatment for bone and joint infections (OVIVA): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Study protocol

Evaluation of acute effect of light-emitting diode (LED) phototherapy on muscle deoxygenation and pulmonary oxygen uptake kinetics in patients with diabetes mellitus: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Study protocol

PRomotion Of Physical activity through structured Education with differing Levels of ongoing Support for people at high risk of type 2 diabetes (PROPELS): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Study protocol

Thyroxine in acute myocardial infarction (ThyrAMI) - levothyroxine in subclinical hypothyroidism post-acute myocardial infarction: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial