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 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Trials
Published in: Trials 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research

The INVEST project: investigating the use of evidence synthesis in the design and analysis of clinical trials

Authors: Gemma L. Clayton, Isabelle L. Smith, Julian P. T. Higgins, Borislava Mihaylova, Benjamin Thorpe, Robert Cicero, Kusal Lokuge, Julia R. Forman, Jayne F. Tierney, Ian R. White, Linda D. Sharples, Hayley E. Jones

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

When designing and analysing clinical trials, using previous relevant information, perhaps in the form of evidence syntheses, can reduce research waste. We conducted the INVEST (INVestigating the use of Evidence Synthesis in the design and analysis of clinical Trials) survey to summarise the current use of evidence synthesis in trial design and analysis, to capture opinions of trialists and methodologists on such use, and to understand any barriers.

Methods

Our sampling frame was all delegates attending the International Clinical Trials Methodology Conference in November 2015. Respondents were asked to indicate (1) their views on the use of evidence synthesis in trial design and analysis, (2) their own use during the past 10 years and (3) the three greatest barriers to use in practice.

Results

Of approximately 638 attendees of the conference, 106 (17%) completed the survey, half of whom were statisticians. Support was generally high for using a description of previous evidence, a systematic review or a meta-analysis in trial design. Generally, respondents did not seem to be using evidence syntheses as often as they felt they should. For example, only 50% (42/84 relevant respondents) had used a meta-analysis to inform whether a trial is needed compared with 74% (62/84) indicating that this is desirable. Only 6% (5/81 relevant respondents) had used a value of information analysis to inform sample size calculations versus 22% (18/81) indicating support for this. Surprisingly large numbers of participants indicated support for, and previous use of, evidence syntheses in trial analysis. For example, 79% (79/100) of respondents indicated that external information about the treatment effect should be used to inform aspects of the analysis. The greatest perceived barrier to using evidence synthesis methods in trial design or analysis was time constraints, followed by a belief that the new trial was the first in the area.

Conclusions

Evidence syntheses can be resource-intensive, but their use in informing the design, conduct and analysis of clinical trials is widely considered desirable. We advocate additional research, training and investment in resources dedicated to ways in which evidence syntheses can be undertaken more efficiently, offering the potential for cost savings in the long term.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
Cooper NJ, Jones DR, Sutton AJ. The use of systematic reviews when designing studies. Clin Trials. 2005;2:260–4.CrossRefPubMed
3.
4.
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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
DerSimonian R. Meta-analysis in the design and monitoring of clinical trials. Stat Med. 1996;15:1237–48.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Clarke M. Doing new research? Don’t forget the old—Nobody should do a trial without reviewing what is known. PLoS Med. 2004;1:100–2.CrossRef
7.
Bhurke S, Cook A, Tallant A, Young A, Williams E, Raftery J. Using systematic reviews to inform NIHR HTA trial planning and design: a retrospective cohort. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2015;15:108.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
Sutton A, Cooper N, Abrams K. Evidence based sample size calculations for future trials based on results of current meta-analyses. Control Clin Trials. 2003;24:88S–S.
9.
Maxwell SE, Kelley K, Rausch JR. Sample size planning for statistical power and accuracy in parameter estimation. Annu Rev Psychol. 2008;59:537–63.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Turner RM, Thompson SG, Spiegelhalter DI. Prior distributions for the intracluster correlation coefficient, based on multiple previous estimates, and their application in cluster randomized trials. Clin Trials. 2005;2:108–18.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Turner RA, Omar RZ, Thompson SG. Constructing intervals for the intracluster correlation coefficient using Bayesian modelling, and application in cluster randomized trials. Stat Med. 2006;25:1443–56.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Clarke M, Hopewell S, Chalmers I. Reports of clinical trials should begin and end with up-to-date systematic reviews of other relevant evidence: a status report. J R Soc Med. 2007;100:187–90.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
Sutton AJ, Donegan S, Takwoingi Y, Garner P, Gamble C, Donald A. An encouraging assessment of methods to inform priorities for updating systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:241–51.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF, Grp Q. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Lancet. 1999;354:1896–900.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Hrobjartsson A, Thomsen ASS, Emanuelsson F, Tendal B, Hilden J, Boutron I, Ravaud P, Brorson S. Observer bias in randomised clinical trials with binary outcomes: systematic review of trials with both blinded and non-blinded outcome assessors. BMJ. 2012;344:e1119.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Welton NJ, Ades AE, Carlin JB, Altman DG, Sterne JAC. Models for potentially biased evidence in meta-analysis using empirically based priors. J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc. 2009;172:119–36.CrossRef
17.
Tierney JF, Pignon JP, Gueffyier F, Clarke M, Askie L, Vale CL, Burdett S, Cochrane IPD Meta-Analysis Methods Group. How individual participant data meta-analyses have influenced trial design, conduct, and analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68:1325–35.
18.
Welton NJ, Ades AE, Caldwell DM, Peters TJ. Research prioritization based on expected value of partial perfect information: a case-study on interventions to increase uptake of breast cancer screening. J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc. 2008;171:807–34.CrossRef
19.
Pope C, Mays N. Reaching the parts other methods cannot reach—an introduction to qualitative methods in health and health-services research. Br Med J. 1995;311:42–5.CrossRef
20.
Nasser M, Clarke M, Chalmers I, Brurberg KG, Nykvist H, Lund H, Glasziou P. What are funders doing to minimise waste in research? Lancet (London, England). 2017;389:1006–7.CrossRef
21.
Feeley N, Cossette S, Cote J, Heon M, Stremler R, Martorella G, Purden M. The importance of piloting an RCT intervention. Can J Nurs Res. 2009;41:85–99.PubMed
22.
Leon AC, Davis LL, Kraemer HC. The role and interpretation of pilot studies in clinical research. J Psychiatr Res. 2011;45:626–9.CrossRefPubMed
23.
24.
Ganann R, Ciliska D, Thomas H. Expediting systematic reviews: methods and implications of rapid reviews. Implement Sci. 2010;5:10–9.CrossRef
25.
Khangura S, Polisena J, Clifford TJ, Farrah K, Kamel C. Rapid review: an emerging approach to evidence synthesis in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30:20–7.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Bindels J, Ramaekers B, Ramos IC, Mohseninejad L, Knies S, Grutters J, Postma M, Al M, Feenstra T, Joore M. Use of value of information in healthcare decision making: exploring multiple perspectives. Pharmacoeconomics. 2016;34:315–22.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Parmar MKB, Carpenter J, Sydes MR. More multiarm randomised trials of superiority are needed. Lancet. 2014;384:283–4.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Jansen JP, Fleurence R, Devine B, Itzler R, Barrett A, Hawkins N, Lee K, Boersma C, Annemans L, Cappelleri JC. Interpreting indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis for health-care decision making: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: Part 1. Value Health. 2011;14:417–28.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Ramsey SD, Willke RJ, Glick H, Reed SD, Augustovski F, Jonsson B, Briggs A, Sullivan SA. Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside clinical trials II—An ISPOR Good Research Practices Task Force Report. Value Health. 2015;18:161–72.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Claxton KP, Sculpher MJ. Using value of information analysis to prioritise health research—Some lessons from recent UK experience. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24:1055–68.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Chalmers I. Randomized controlled trials of aprotinin in cardiac surgery: could clinical equipoise have stopped the bleeding? Comment Clin Trials. 2005;2:229–31.
32.
Ferreira ML, Herbert RD, Crowther MJ, Verhagen A, Sutton AJ. When is a further clinical trial justified? BMJ. 2012;345:e5913.
33.
Salanti G, Higgins JPT, Ades AE, Ioannidis JPA. Evaluation of networks of randomized trials. Stat Methods Med Res. 2008;17:279–301.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Peto R, Emberson J, Landray M, Baigent C, Collins R, Clare R, Califf R. Analyses of cancer data from three Ezetimibe trials. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:1357–66.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Savovic J, Jones HE, Altman DG, Harris RJ, Juni P, Pildal J, Als-Nielsen B, Balk EM, Gluud C, Gluud LL, Ioannidis JPA, Schulz KF, Beynon R, Welton NJ, Wood L, Moher D, Deeks JJ, Sterne JAC. Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomized, controlled trials. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157:429–U97.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Metadata
Title
The INVEST project: investigating the use of evidence synthesis in the design and analysis of clinical trials
Authors
Gemma L. Clayton
Isabelle L. Smith
Julian P. T. Higgins
Borislava Mihaylova
Benjamin Thorpe
Robert Cicero
Kusal Lokuge
Julia R. Forman
Jayne F. Tierney
Ian R. White
Linda D. Sharples
Hayley E. Jones
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-1955-y

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

Trials 1/2017 Go to the issue

Study protocol

Adolescent Coordinated Transition (ACT) to improve health outcomes among young people living with HIV in Nigeria: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Study protocol

A mixed-methods feasibility and external pilot study to inform a large pragmatic randomised controlled trial of the effects of surgical wound dressing strategies on surgical site infections (Bluebelle Phase B): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Study protocol

The PD COMM trial: a protocol for the process evaluation of a randomised trial assessing the effectiveness of two types of SLT for people with Parkinson’s disease

Study protocol

Effect of aquatic physical therapy on pain perception, functional capacity and quality of life in older people with knee osteoarthritis: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Study protocol

RETRACTED ARTICLE: Esoteric Connective Tissue Therapy for chronic low back pain to reduce pain, and improve functionality and general well-being compared with physiotherapy: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Study protocol

Cost evaluation, quality of life and pelvic organ function of three approaches to hysterectomy for benign uterine conditions: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial