94
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Defining Feasibility and Pilot Studies in Preparation for Randomised Controlled Trials: Development of a Conceptual Framework

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          We describe a framework for defining pilot and feasibility studies focusing on studies conducted in preparation for a randomised controlled trial. To develop the framework, we undertook a Delphi survey; ran an open meeting at a trial methodology conference; conducted a review of definitions outside the health research context; consulted experts at an international consensus meeting; and reviewed 27 empirical pilot or feasibility studies. We initially adopted mutually exclusive definitions of pilot and feasibility studies. However, some Delphi survey respondents and the majority of open meeting attendees disagreed with the idea of mutually exclusive definitions. Their viewpoint was supported by definitions outside the health research context, the use of the terms ‘pilot’ and ‘feasibility’ in the literature, and participants at the international consensus meeting. In our framework, pilot studies are a subset of feasibility studies, rather than the two being mutually exclusive. A feasibility study asks whether something can be done, should we proceed with it, and if so, how. A pilot study asks the same questions but also has a specific design feature: in a pilot study a future study, or part of a future study, is conducted on a smaller scale. We suggest that to facilitate their identification, these studies should be clearly identified using the terms ‘feasibility’ or ‘pilot’ as appropriate. This should include feasibility studies that are largely qualitative; we found these difficult to identify in electronic searches because researchers rarely used the term ‘feasibility’ in the title or abstract of such studies. Investigators should also report appropriate objectives and methods related to feasibility; and give clear confirmation that their study is in preparation for a future randomised controlled trial designed to assess the effect of an intervention.

          Related collections

          Most cited references38

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials.

          The CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement is used worldwide to improve the reporting of randomized, controlled trials. Schulz and colleagues describe the latest version, CONSORT 2010, which updates the reporting guideline based on new methodological evidence and accumulating experience.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Design and analysis of pilot studies: recommendations for good practice.

            Pilot studies play an important role in health research, but they can be misused, mistreated and misrepresented. In this paper we focus on pilot studies that are used specifically to plan a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Citing examples from the literature, we provide a methodological framework in which to work, and discuss reasons why a pilot study might be undertaken. A well-conducted pilot study, giving a clear list of aims and objectives within a formal framework will encourage methodological rigour, ensure that the work is scientifically valid and publishable, and will lead to higher quality RCTs. It will also safeguard against pilot studies being conducted simply because of small numbers of available patients.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Recommendations for planning pilot studies in clinical and translational research.

              Advances in clinical and translation science are facilitated by building on prior knowledge gained through experimentation and observation. In the context of drug development, preclinical studies are followed by a progression of phase I through phase IV clinical trials. At each step, the study design and statistical strategies are framed around research questions that are prerequisites for the next phase. In other types of biomedical research, pilot studies are used for gathering preliminary support for the next research step. However, the phrase "pilot study" is liberally applied to projects with little or no funding, characteristic of studies with poorly developed research proposals, and usually conducted with no detailed thought of the subsequent study. In this article, we present a rigorous definition of a pilot study, offer recommendations for the design, analysis and sample size justification of pilot studies in clinical and translational research, and emphasize the important role that well-designed pilot studies play in the advancement of science and scientific careers. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS ONE
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                15 March 2016
                2016
                : 11
                : 3
                : e0150205
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Centre for Primary Care and Public Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
                [2 ]Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Lancaster University, Lancaster, Lancashire, United Kingdom
                [3 ]School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, South Yorkshire, United Kingdom
                [4 ]Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
                [5 ]Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom
                [6 ]Centre of Academic Primary Care, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland, United Kingdom
                Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, ITALY
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE disclosure form at http://www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf and declare support from the following organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work – Queen Mary University of London, Sheffield University, NIHR, Chief Scientist Office Scotland; financial relationships with NIHR, MRC, EC FP7, Canadian Institute for Health Research, Wiley, who might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years. No other relationships or activities have influenced the submitted work. This does not alter the authors' adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

                Conceived and designed the experiments: SE GL MC LT SH CB. Performed the experiments: SE GL MC LT SH CB CC. Analyzed the data: SE GL MC LT SH CB CC. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: SE GL MC LT SH CB. Wrote the paper: SE GL MC LT SH CB CC.

                Article
                PONE-D-15-35699
                10.1371/journal.pone.0150205
                4792418
                26978655
                1245b92a-b040-4fe9-8561-5ce8363df98a
                © 2016 Eldridge et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 13 August 2015
                : 10 February 2016
                Page count
                Figures: 7, Tables: 2, Pages: 22
                Funding
                The authors received small grants from Queen Mary University of London (£7495), University of Sheffield (£8000), NIHR RDS London (£2000), NIHR RDS South East (£2400), Chief Scientist Office Scotland (£1000). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Design
                Pilot Studies
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Clinical Medicine
                Clinical Trials
                Randomized Controlled Trials
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Pharmacology
                Drug Research and Development
                Clinical Trials
                Randomized Controlled Trials
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Clinical Trials
                Randomized Controlled Trials
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Design
                Survey Research
                Surveys
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Clinical Medicine
                Clinical Trials
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Pharmacology
                Drug Research and Development
                Clinical Trials
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Clinical Trials
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Design
                Survey Research
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Design
                Qualitative Studies
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Assessment
                Systematic Reviews
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Women's Health
                Maternal Health
                Pregnancy
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Women's Health
                Obstetrics and Gynecology
                Pregnancy
                Custom metadata
                Due to a requirement by the ethics committee that the authors specified when the data will be destroyed, the authors are not able to give unlimited access to the Delphi study quantitative data. These data are available from Professor Sandra Eldridge. Data will be available upon request to all interested researchers. Qualitative data from the Delphi study are not available because the authors do not have consent from participants for wider distribution of this more sensitive data.

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article