Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Trials 1/2019

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Research

Synthesizing existing evidence to design future trials: survey of methodologists from European institutions

Authors: Adriani Nikolakopoulou, Sven Trelle, Alex J. Sutton, Matthias Egger, Georgia Salanti

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

‘Conditional trial design’ is a framework for efficiently planning new clinical trials based on a network of relevant existing trials. The framework considers whether new trials are required and how the existing evidence can be used to answer the research question and plan future research. The potential of this approach has not been fully realized.

Methods

We conducted an online survey among trial statisticians, methodologists, and users of evidence synthesis research using referral sampling to capture opinions about the conditional trial design framework and current practices among clinical researchers. The questions included in the survey were related to the decision of whether a meta-analysis answers the research question, the optimal way to synthesize available evidence, which relates to the acceptability of network meta-analysis, and the use of evidence synthesis in the planning of new studies.

Results

In total, 76 researchers completed the survey. Two out of three survey participants (65%) were willing to possibly or definitely consider using evidence synthesis to design a future clinical trial and around half of the participants would give priority to such a trial design. The median rating of the frequency of using such a trial design was 0.41 on a scale from 0 (never) to 1 (always). Major barriers to adopting conditional trial design include the current regulatory paradigm and the policies of funding agencies and sponsors.

Conclusions

Participants reported moderate interest in using evidence synthesis methods in the design of future trials. They indicated that a major paradigm shift is required before the use of network meta-analysis is regularly employed in the design of trials.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Robinson KA, Saldanha IJ, Mckoy NA. Frameworks for determining research gaps during systematic reviews. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2011. Robinson KA, Saldanha IJ, Mckoy NA. Frameworks for determining research gaps during systematic reviews. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2011.
2.
go back to reference Roloff V, Higgins JPT, Sutton AJ. Planning future studies based on the conditional power of a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2013;32(1):11–24.CrossRef Roloff V, Higgins JPT, Sutton AJ. Planning future studies based on the conditional power of a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2013;32(1):11–24.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Nikolakopoulou A, Mavridis D, Salanti G. Using conditional power of network meta-analysis (NMA) to inform the design of future clinical trials. Biom J Biom Z. 2014;56(6):973–90.CrossRef Nikolakopoulou A, Mavridis D, Salanti G. Using conditional power of network meta-analysis (NMA) to inform the design of future clinical trials. Biom J Biom Z. 2014;56(6):973–90.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Sutton AJ, Cooper NJ, Jones DR, Lambert PC, Thompson JR, Abrams KR. Evidence-based sample size calculations based upon updated meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2007;26(12):2479–500.CrossRef Sutton AJ, Cooper NJ, Jones DR, Lambert PC, Thompson JR, Abrams KR. Evidence-based sample size calculations based upon updated meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2007;26(12):2479–500.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Langan D, Higgins JPT, Gregory W, Sutton AJ. Graphical augmentations to the funnel plot assess the impact of additional evidence on a meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65(5):511–9.CrossRef Langan D, Higgins JPT, Gregory W, Sutton AJ. Graphical augmentations to the funnel plot assess the impact of additional evidence on a meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65(5):511–9.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Ferreira ML, Herbert RD, Crowther MJ, Verhagen A, Sutton AJ. When is a further clinical trial justified? BMJ. 2012;345:e5913.CrossRef Ferreira ML, Herbert RD, Crowther MJ, Verhagen A, Sutton AJ. When is a further clinical trial justified? BMJ. 2012;345:e5913.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Kanters S, Ford N, Druyts E, Thorlund K, Mills EJ, Bansback N. Use of network meta-analysis in clinical guidelines. Bull World Health Organ. 2016;94(10):782–4.CrossRef Kanters S, Ford N, Druyts E, Thorlund K, Mills EJ, Bansback N. Use of network meta-analysis in clinical guidelines. Bull World Health Organ. 2016;94(10):782–4.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Nikolakopoulou A, Mavridis D, Salanti G. Planning future studies based on the precision of network meta-analysis results. Stat Med. 2016;35(7):978–1000.CrossRef Nikolakopoulou A, Mavridis D, Salanti G. Planning future studies based on the precision of network meta-analysis results. Stat Med. 2016;35(7):978–1000.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Clayton GL, et al. The INVEST project: investigating the use of evidence synthesis in the design and analysis of clinical trials. Trials. 2017;18:1.CrossRef Clayton GL, et al. The INVEST project: investigating the use of evidence synthesis in the design and analysis of clinical trials. Trials. 2017;18:1.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference 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(4):187–90.CrossRef 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(4):187–90.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference 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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Fergusson D, Glass KC, Hutton B, Shapiro S. Randomized controlled trials of aprotinin in cardiac surgery: could clinical equipoise have stopped the bleeding? Clin Trials Lond Engl. 2005;2(3):218–229-232.CrossRef Fergusson D, Glass KC, Hutton B, Shapiro S. Randomized controlled trials of aprotinin in cardiac surgery: could clinical equipoise have stopped the bleeding? Clin Trials Lond Engl. 2005;2(3):218–229-232.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Chalmers I, Hedges LV, Cooper H. A brief history of research synthesis. Eval Health Prof. 2002;25(1):12–37.CrossRef Chalmers I, Hedges LV, Cooper H. A brief history of research synthesis. Eval Health Prof. 2002;25(1):12–37.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Clarke M, Alderson P, Chalmers I. Discussion sections in reports of controlled trials published in general medical journals. JAMA. 2002;287(21):2799–801.CrossRef Clarke M, Alderson P, Chalmers I. Discussion sections in reports of controlled trials published in general medical journals. JAMA. 2002;287(21):2799–801.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Clarke M, Chalmers I. Discussion sections in reports of controlled trials published in general medical journals: islands in search of continents? JAMA. 1998;280(3):280–2.CrossRef Clarke M, Chalmers I. Discussion sections in reports of controlled trials published in general medical journals: islands in search of continents? JAMA. 1998;280(3):280–2.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Cooper NJ, Jones DR, Sutton AJ. The use of systematic reviews when designing studies. Clin. Trials Lond. Engl. 2005;2(3):260–4.CrossRef Cooper NJ, Jones DR, Sutton AJ. The use of systematic reviews when designing studies. Clin. Trials Lond. Engl. 2005;2(3):260–4.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Chalmers I, et al. How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet Lond Engl. 2014;383(9912):156–65.CrossRef Chalmers I, et al. How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet Lond Engl. 2014;383(9912):156–65.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference 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(1):50.CrossRef 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(1):50.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference 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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Robinson KA, Goodman SN. A systematic examination of the citation of prior research in reports of randomized, controlled trials. Ann Intern Med. 2011;154(1):50–5.CrossRef Robinson KA, Goodman SN. A systematic examination of the citation of prior research in reports of randomized, controlled trials. Ann Intern Med. 2011;154(1):50–5.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Nasser M, et al. What are funders doing to minimise waste in research? Lancet Lond. Engl. 2017;389(10073):1006–7.CrossRef Nasser M, et al. What are funders doing to minimise waste in research? Lancet Lond. Engl. 2017;389(10073):1006–7.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Clark T, Davies H, Mansmann U. Five questions that need answering when considering the design of clinical trials. Trials. 2014;15:286.CrossRef Clark T, Davies H, Mansmann U. Five questions that need answering when considering the design of clinical trials. Trials. 2014;15:286.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference 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;15:1.CrossRef 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;15:1.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Didden E-M, et al. Prediction of real-world drug effectiveness prelaunch: case study in rheumatoid arthritis. Med Decis Mak. 2018;38(6):719–29.CrossRef Didden E-M, et al. Prediction of real-world drug effectiveness prelaunch: case study in rheumatoid arthritis. Med Decis Mak. 2018;38(6):719–29.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Egger M, Moons KGM, Fletcher C, GetReal Workpackage 4. GetReal: from efficacy in clinical trials to relative effectiveness in the real world. Res. Synth. Methods. 2016;7(3):278–81.CrossRef Egger M, Moons KGM, Fletcher C, GetReal Workpackage 4. GetReal: from efficacy in clinical trials to relative effectiveness in the real world. Res. Synth. Methods. 2016;7(3):278–81.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Brok J, Thorlund K, Wetterslev J, Gluud C. Apparently conclusive meta-analyses may be inconclusive—trial sequential analysis adjustment of random error risk due to repetitive testing of accumulating data in apparently conclusive neonatal meta-analyses. Int J Epidemiol. 2009;38(1):287–98.CrossRef Brok J, Thorlund K, Wetterslev J, Gluud C. Apparently conclusive meta-analyses may be inconclusive—trial sequential analysis adjustment of random error risk due to repetitive testing of accumulating data in apparently conclusive neonatal meta-analyses. Int J Epidemiol. 2009;38(1):287–98.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Thorlund K, et al. Can trial sequential monitoring boundaries reduce spurious inferences from meta-analyses? Int J Epidemiol. 2009;38(1):276–86.CrossRef Thorlund K, et al. Can trial sequential monitoring boundaries reduce spurious inferences from meta-analyses? Int J Epidemiol. 2009;38(1):276–86.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Higgins JPT, Whitehead A, Simmonds M. Sequential methods for random-effects meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2011;30(9):903–21.CrossRef Higgins JPT, Whitehead A, Simmonds M. Sequential methods for random-effects meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2011;30(9):903–21.CrossRef
31.
go back to reference Simmonds M, Salanti G, McKenzie J, Elliott J. Living Systematic Review Network, Living systematic reviews: 3. Statistical methods for updating meta-analyses. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;91:38–46.CrossRef Simmonds M, Salanti G, McKenzie J, Elliott J. Living Systematic Review Network, Living systematic reviews: 3. Statistical methods for updating meta-analyses. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;91:38–46.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Synthesizing existing evidence to design future trials: survey of methodologists from European institutions
Authors
Adriani Nikolakopoulou
Sven Trelle
Alex J. Sutton
Matthias Egger
Georgia Salanti
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-019-3449-6

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

Trials 1/2019 Go to the issue