Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Trials 1/2022

Open Access 01-12-2022 | Public Health | Methodology

A good use of time? Providing evidence for how effort is invested in primary and secondary outcome data collection in trials

Authors: Heidi Gardner, Adel Elfeky, David Pickles, Annabel Dawson, Katie Gillies, Violet Warwick, Shaun Treweek

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2022

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Data collection is a substantial part of trial workload for participants and staff alike. How these hours of work are spent is important because stakeholders are more interested in some outcomes than others. The ORINOCO study compared the time spent collecting primary outcome data to the time spent collecting secondary outcome data in a cohort of trials.

Methods

We searched PubMed for phase III trials indexed between 2015 and 2019. From these, we randomly selected 120 trials evaluating a therapeutic intervention plus an additional random selection of 20 trials evaluating a public health intervention. We also added eligible trials from a cohort of 189 trials in rheumatology that had used the same core outcome set.
We then obtained the time taken to collect primary and secondary outcomes in each trial. We used a hierarchy of methods that included data in trial reports, contacting the trial team and approaching individuals with experience of using the identified outcome measures. We calculated the primary to secondary data collection time ratio and notional data collection cost for each included trial.

Results

We included 161 trials (120 phase III; 21 core outcome set; 20 public health), which together collected 230 primary and 688 secondary outcomes. Full primary and secondary timing data were obtained for 134 trials (100 phase III; 17 core outcome set; 17 public health). The median time spent on primaries was 56.1 h (range: 0.0–10,746.7, IQR: 226.89) and the median time spent on secondaries was 190.7 hours (range: 0.0–1,356,832.9, IQR: 617.6). The median primary to secondary data collection time ratio was 1.0:3.0 (i.e. for every minute spent on primary outcomes, 3.0 were spent on secondaries). The ratio varied by trial type: phase III trials were 1.0:3.1, core outcome set 1.0:3.4 and public health trials 1.0:2.2. The median notional overall data collection cost was £8015.73 (range: £52.90–£31,899,140.70, IQR: £20,096.64).

Conclusions

Depending on trial type, between two and three times as much time is spent collecting secondary outcome data than collecting primary outcome data. Trial teams should explicitly consider how long it will take to collect the data for an outcome and decide whether that time is worth it given importance of the outcome to the trial.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Hind D, Reeves BC, Bathers S, Bray C, Corkhill A, Hayward C, et al. Comparative costs and activity from a sample of UK clinical trials units. Trials. 2017;18(1):1–11.CrossRef Hind D, Reeves BC, Bathers S, Bray C, Corkhill A, Hayward C, et al. Comparative costs and activity from a sample of UK clinical trials units. Trials. 2017;18(1):1–11.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Getz KA, Wenger J, Campo RA, Seguine ES, Kaitin KI. Assessing the impact of protocol design changes on clinical trial performance. Am J Ther. 2008;15(5):450–7.CrossRef Getz KA, Wenger J, Campo RA, Seguine ES, Kaitin KI. Assessing the impact of protocol design changes on clinical trial performance. Am J Ther. 2008;15(5):450–7.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Getz KA, Stergiopoulos S, Marlborough M, Whitehill J, Curran M, Kaitin KI. Quantifying the magnitude and cost of collecting extraneous protocol data. Am J Ther. 2015;22(2):117–24.CrossRef Getz KA, Stergiopoulos S, Marlborough M, Whitehill J, Curran M, Kaitin KI. Quantifying the magnitude and cost of collecting extraneous protocol data. Am J Ther. 2015;22(2):117–24.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference O’Leary E, Seow H, Julian J, Levine M, Pond GR. Data collection in cancer clinical trials: too much of a good thing? Clin Trials. 2013;10(4):624–32.CrossRef O’Leary E, Seow H, Julian J, Levine M, Pond GR. Data collection in cancer clinical trials: too much of a good thing? Clin Trials. 2013;10(4):624–32.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Crowley E, Treweek S, Banister K, Breeman S, Constable L, Cotton S, et al. Using systematic data categorisation to quantify the types of data collected in clinical trials: the DataCat project. Trials. 2020;21(1):1–10.CrossRef Crowley E, Treweek S, Banister K, Breeman S, Constable L, Cotton S, et al. Using systematic data categorisation to quantify the types of data collected in clinical trials: the DataCat project. Trials. 2020;21(1):1–10.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Dwan K, Altman DG, Cresswell L, Blundell M, Gamble CL, Williamson PR. Comparison of protocols and registry entries to published reports for randomised controlled trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;2011(1):MR000031. Dwan K, Altman DG, Cresswell L, Blundell M, Gamble CL, Williamson PR. Comparison of protocols and registry entries to published reports for randomised controlled trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;2011(1):MR000031.
7.
go back to reference Kirkham JJ, Dwan KM, Blümle A, von Elm E, Williamson PR. How much participant outcome data is missing from Sight: findings from a cohort of trials submitted to a German research ethics committee. PLoS One. 2016;11(6):e0157883.CrossRef Kirkham JJ, Dwan KM, Blümle A, von Elm E, Williamson PR. How much participant outcome data is missing from Sight: findings from a cohort of trials submitted to a German research ethics committee. PLoS One. 2016;11(6):e0157883.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Heneghan C, Goldacre B, Mahtani KR. Why clinical trial outcomes fail to translate into benefits for patients. Trials. 2017;18:122.CrossRef Heneghan C, Goldacre B, Mahtani KR. Why clinical trial outcomes fail to translate into benefits for patients. Trials. 2017;18:122.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Williamson PR, Altman DG, Bagley H, Barnes KL, Blazeby JM, Brookes ST, et al. The COMET handbook: version 1.0. Trials. 2017;18(3):1–50. Williamson PR, Altman DG, Bagley H, Barnes KL, Blazeby JM, Brookes ST, et al. The COMET handbook: version 1.0. Trials. 2017;18(3):1–50.
10.
go back to reference Hughes KL, Kirkham JJ, Clarke M, Williamson PR. Assessing the impact of a research funder’s recommendation to consider core outcome sets. PLoS One. 2019;14:e0222418.CrossRef Hughes KL, Kirkham JJ, Clarke M, Williamson PR. Assessing the impact of a research funder’s recommendation to consider core outcome sets. PLoS One. 2019;14:e0222418.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Kirkham JJ, Clarke M, Williamson PR. A methodological approach for assessing the uptake of core outcome sets using ClinicalTrials.gov: findings from a review of randomised controlled trials of rheumatoid arthritis. BMJ. 2017;357:j2262.CrossRef Kirkham JJ, Clarke M, Williamson PR. A methodological approach for assessing the uptake of core outcome sets using ClinicalTrials.gov: findings from a review of randomised controlled trials of rheumatoid arthritis. BMJ. 2017;357:j2262.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Tugwell P, Boers M, Brooks P, et al. OMERACT: An international initiative to improve outcome measurement in rheumatology. Trials. 2007;8:38.CrossRef Tugwell P, Boers M, Brooks P, et al. OMERACT: An international initiative to improve outcome measurement in rheumatology. Trials. 2007;8:38.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Pickles D, Treweek S. Time well spent? A comparison of the work associated with collecting primary and secondary outcomes. Trials. 2017;18(Suppl 1):P409. Pickles D, Treweek S. Time well spent? A comparison of the work associated with collecting primary and secondary outcomes. Trials. 2017;18(Suppl 1):P409.
15.
go back to reference Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet. 2009;374(9683):86–9.CrossRef Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet. 2009;374(9683):86–9.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Jacques RM, Ahmed R, Harper J, et al. Recruitment, consent and retention of participants in randomised controlled trials: a review of trials published in the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Journals Library (1997–2020). BMJ Open. 2022;12:e059230.CrossRef Jacques RM, Ahmed R, Harper J, et al. Recruitment, consent and retention of participants in randomised controlled trials: a review of trials published in the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Journals Library (1997–2020). BMJ Open. 2022;12:e059230.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Kasenda B, Elm von E, You J, Blümle A, Tomonaga Y, Saccilotto R, et al. Prevalence, characteristics, and publication of discontinued randomized trials. JAMA. 2014;311:1045–51.CrossRef Kasenda B, Elm von E, You J, Blümle A, Tomonaga Y, Saccilotto R, et al. Prevalence, characteristics, and publication of discontinued randomized trials. JAMA. 2014;311:1045–51.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Brunsdon D, Biesty L, Brocklehurst P, et al. What are the most important unanswered research questions in trial retention? A James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership: the PRioRiTy II (Prioritising Retention in Randomised Trials) study. Trials. 2019;20:593.CrossRef Brunsdon D, Biesty L, Brocklehurst P, et al. What are the most important unanswered research questions in trial retention? A James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership: the PRioRiTy II (Prioritising Retention in Randomised Trials) study. Trials. 2019;20:593.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Macnair A, Love SB, Murray ML, et al. Accessing routinely collected health data to improve clinical trials: recent experience of access. Trials. 2021;22:340.CrossRef Macnair A, Love SB, Murray ML, et al. Accessing routinely collected health data to improve clinical trials: recent experience of access. Trials. 2021;22:340.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Peden CJ, Stephens T, Martin G, Kahan BC, Thomson A, Rivett K, et al. Effectiveness of a national quality improvement programme to improve survival after emergency abdominal surgery (EPOCH): a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial. Lancet. 2019;393(10187):2213–21.CrossRef Peden CJ, Stephens T, Martin G, Kahan BC, Thomson A, Rivett K, et al. Effectiveness of a national quality improvement programme to improve survival after emergency abdominal surgery (EPOCH): a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial. Lancet. 2019;393(10187):2213–21.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Matvienko-Sikar K, Avery K, Blazeby JM, Devane D, Dodd S, Egan AM, et al. Use of core outcome sets was low in clinical trials published in major medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022;142:19–28.CrossRef Matvienko-Sikar K, Avery K, Blazeby JM, Devane D, Dodd S, Egan AM, et al. Use of core outcome sets was low in clinical trials published in major medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022;142:19–28.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Hughes KL, Clarke M, Williamson PR. A systematic review finds Core Outcome Set uptake varies widely across different areas of health. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;129:114–23.CrossRef Hughes KL, Clarke M, Williamson PR. A systematic review finds Core Outcome Set uptake varies widely across different areas of health. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;129:114–23.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
A good use of time? Providing evidence for how effort is invested in primary and secondary outcome data collection in trials
Authors
Heidi Gardner
Adel Elfeky
David Pickles
Annabel Dawson
Katie Gillies
Violet Warwick
Shaun Treweek
Publication date
01-12-2022
Publisher
BioMed Central
Keyword
Public Health
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2022
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-022-06973-8

Other articles of this Issue 1/2022

Trials 1/2022 Go to the issue