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

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Research article

Using systematic reviews to inform NIHR HTA trial planning and design: a retrospective cohort

Authors: Sheetal Bhurke, Andrew Cook, Anna Tallant, Amanda Young, Elaine Williams, James Raftery

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Chalmers and Glasziou’s paper published in 2014 recommends research funding bodies should mandate that proposals for additional primary research are built on systematic reviews of existing evidence showing what is already known. Jones et al. identified 11 (23 %) of 48 trials funded during 2006–8 by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment (NIHR HTA) Programme did not reference a systematic review. This study did not explore the reasons for trials not referencing a systematic review or consider trials using any other evidence in the absence of a systematic review. Referencing a systematic review may not be possible in certain circumstances, for instance if the systematic review does not address the question being proposed in the trial. The current study extended Jones’ study by exploring the reasons for why trials did not reference a systematic review and included a more recent cohort of trials funded in 2013 to determine if there were any changes in the referencing or use of systematic reviews.

Methods

Two cohorts of NIHR HTA randomised controlled trials were included. Cohort I included the same trials as Jones et al. (with the exception of one trial which was discontinued). Cohort II included NIHR HTA trials funded in 2013. Data extraction was undertaken independently by two reviewers using full applications and trial protocols. Descriptive statistics was used and no formal statistical analyses were conducted.

Results

Five (11 %) trials of the 47 funded during 2006–2008 did not reference a systematic review. These 5 trials had warranted reasons for not referencing systematic reviews. All trials from Cohort II referenced a systematic review. A quarter of all those trials with a preceding systematic review used a different primary outcome than those stated in the reviews.

Conclusions

The NIHR requires that proposals for new primary research are justified by existing evidence and the findings of this study confirm the adherence to this requirement with a high rate of applications using systematic reviews.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
Chalmers I, Bracken MB, Djulbegovic B, Garattini S, Grant J, Gulmezoglu AM, et al. How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet. 2014;383(9912):156–65.PubMedCrossRef
3.
4.
Clarke M, Hopewell S, Chalmers I. Clinical trials should begin and end with systematic reviews of relevant evidence: 12 years and waiting. Lancet. 2010;376(9734):20–1.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Clarke M, Hopewell, S. Many reports of randomised trials still don’t begin or end with a systematic review of the relevant evidence. J Bahrain Medical Soc. 2013, 24(3).
6.
Clark T, Berger U, Mansmann U. Sample size determinations in original research protocols for randomised clinical trials submitted to UK research ethics committees: review. BMJ. 2013;346:f1135.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
7.
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;348:g5219.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Jones AP, Conroy E, Williamson PR, Clarke M, Gamble C. The use of systematic reviews in the planning, design and conduct of randomised trials: a retrospective cohort of NIHR HTA funded trials. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13:50.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
9.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guidance on the use of trastuzumab for the treatment of advanced breast cancer. In: NICE Technology Appraisal Guidance No 34. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2002.
10.
Lewis R, Bagnall AM, Forbes C, Shirran E, Duffy S, Kleijnen J, et al. The clinical effectiveness of trastuzumab for breast cancer: a systematic review. Health Technol Assess. 2002;6(13).
11.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Docetaxel for the treatment of hormone-refractory metastatic prostate cancer. In: NICE Technology Assessment Guidance 101. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2006.
12.
Collins R, Fenwick E, Trowman R, Perard R, Norman G, Light K, et al. A systematic review and economic model of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of docetaxel in combination with prednisone or prednisolone for the treatment of hormone-refractory metastatic prostate cancer. Health Technol Assess. 2007;11(2).
13.
Mathis S, Khanlari B, Pulido F, Schechter M, Negredo E, Nelson M, et al. Effectiveness of protease inhibitor monotherapy versus combination antiretroviral maintenance therapy: a meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. 2011;6(7), e22003.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
14.
Goudie AC, Sutton AJ, Jones DR, Donald A. Empirical assessment suggests that existing evidence could be used more fully in designing randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(9):983–91.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Cooper NJ, Jones DR, Sutton AJ. The use of systematic reviews when designing studies. Clin Trials. 2005;2(3):260–4.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Metadata
Title
Using systematic reviews to inform NIHR HTA trial planning and design: a retrospective cohort
Authors
Sheetal Bhurke
Andrew Cook
Anna Tallant
Amanda Young
Elaine Williams
James Raftery
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-015-0102-2

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2015 Go to the issue

Research article

Statistical power as a function of Cronbach alpha of instrument questionnaire items

Research article

Barriers and facilitators to patient recruitment to a cluster randomized controlled trial in primary care: lessons for future trials

Research article

Moderate agreement between self-reported stroke and hospital-recorded stroke in two cohorts of Australian women: a validation study

Research Article

Comparison of different approaches to estimating age standardized net survival

Research article

Validity over time of self-reported anthropometric variables during follow-up of a large cohort of UK women

Research article

Can obtaining informed consent alter self-reported drinking behaviour? A methodological experiment