Skip to content

Value of surgical pilot and feasibility study protocols

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)968-978
Number of pages11
JournalBritish Journal of Surgery
Volume106
Issue number8
Early online date10 May 2019
DOIs
DateAccepted/In press - 12 Feb 2019
DateE-pub ahead of print - 10 May 2019
DatePublished (current) - 1 Jul 2019

Abstract

BACKGROUND: RCTs in surgery are challenging owing to well established methodological issues. Well designed pilot and feasibility studies (PFS) may help overcome such issues to inform successful main trial design and conduct. This study aimed to analyse protocols of UK-funded studies to explore current use of PFS in surgery and identify areas for practice improvement.

METHODS: PFS of surgical interventions funded by UK National Institute for Health Research programmes from 2005 to 2015 were identified, and original study protocols and associated publications sourced. Data extracted included study design characteristics, reasons for performing the work including perceived uncertainties around conducting a definitive main trial, and whether the studies had been published.

RESULTS: Thirty-five surgical studies were identified, of which 29 were randomized, and over half (15 of 29) included additional methodological components (such as qualitative work examining recruitment, and participant surveys studying current interventions). Most studies focused on uncertainties around recruitment (32 of 35), with far fewer tackling uncertainties specific to surgery, such as intervention stability, implementation or delivery (10 of 35). Only half (19 of 35) had made their results available publicly, to date.

CONCLUSION: The full potential of pretrial work to inform and optimize definitive surgical studies is not being realized.

    Structured keywords

  • Centre for Surgical Research

Download statistics

No data available

Documents

Documents

  • Full-text PDF (final published version)

    Rights statement: This is the final published version of the article (version of record). It first appeared online via Wiley at https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/bjs.11167 . Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher.

    Final published version, 286 KB, PDF document

    Licence: CC BY

DOI

View research connections

Related faculties, schools or groups