The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

How are systematic reviews used in the planning and design of health technology assessment funded trials?

How are systematic reviews used in the planning and design of health technology assessment funded trials?
How are systematic reviews used in the planning and design of health technology assessment funded trials?
Background: limited evidence exists on how systematic reviews are used in the design of new trials. A study by Jones (2013) showed that 11 out of 48 applications made no reference to a systematic review. Of the 37 trials referencing a systematic review 20 reported their use in the design of the trial.

Objectives: to replicate and verify Jones' study and explore the reasons why some trials do not refer or use a systematic review. The study also included an updated cohort of NIHR HTA trials to identify any improvements over time.

Methods: two cohorts of NIHR HTA randomised controlled trials were included. Cohort I included the same trials as Jones (2006-2008). Cohort II included NIHR HTA trials funded in 2013. Data extraction was undertaken independently by two reviewers and results were presented using descriptive statistics.

Results: justifying the need for new primary research using a systematic review is not always feasible. Our study found nine (19%) and three (9%) trials from cohort I and II respectively where a systematic review was not referenced. Although our findings were similar to Jones, we found all nine trials had a justifiable reason for not referring to a systematic review.

Conclusions: the results of this study demonstrate how 85% of NIHR HTA trials use systematic reviews to inform the design and planning of a new trial. Systematic reviews play an important role in the development of clinical trials and the implications of this will be discussed.
1745-6215
Bhurke, Sheetal
cc2ead20-3dfb-42c4-a8c4-cda360b52ab3
Cook, Andrew
44a62c6d-9d19-4dd0-ba23-18aeb2e6e6b8
Tallant, Anna
0bc36818-3981-4671-b8fe-01203fc938bc
Young, Amanda
6bb7aa9c-776b-4bdd-be4e-cf67abd05652
Williams, Elaine
8fcbbdb7-79e3-4374-ab2d-d4ed27e85060
Raftery, James
27c2661d-6c4f-448a-bf36-9a89ec72bd6b
Bhurke, Sheetal
cc2ead20-3dfb-42c4-a8c4-cda360b52ab3
Cook, Andrew
44a62c6d-9d19-4dd0-ba23-18aeb2e6e6b8
Tallant, Anna
0bc36818-3981-4671-b8fe-01203fc938bc
Young, Amanda
6bb7aa9c-776b-4bdd-be4e-cf67abd05652
Williams, Elaine
8fcbbdb7-79e3-4374-ab2d-d4ed27e85060
Raftery, James
27c2661d-6c4f-448a-bf36-9a89ec72bd6b

Bhurke, Sheetal, Cook, Andrew, Tallant, Anna, Young, Amanda, Williams, Elaine and Raftery, James (2015) How are systematic reviews used in the planning and design of health technology assessment funded trials? Trials, 16 (Supplement 2), [O3]. (doi:10.1186/1745-6215-16-S2-O3).

Record type: Meeting abstract

Abstract

Background: limited evidence exists on how systematic reviews are used in the design of new trials. A study by Jones (2013) showed that 11 out of 48 applications made no reference to a systematic review. Of the 37 trials referencing a systematic review 20 reported their use in the design of the trial.

Objectives: to replicate and verify Jones' study and explore the reasons why some trials do not refer or use a systematic review. The study also included an updated cohort of NIHR HTA trials to identify any improvements over time.

Methods: two cohorts of NIHR HTA randomised controlled trials were included. Cohort I included the same trials as Jones (2006-2008). Cohort II included NIHR HTA trials funded in 2013. Data extraction was undertaken independently by two reviewers and results were presented using descriptive statistics.

Results: justifying the need for new primary research using a systematic review is not always feasible. Our study found nine (19%) and three (9%) trials from cohort I and II respectively where a systematic review was not referenced. Although our findings were similar to Jones, we found all nine trials had a justifiable reason for not referring to a systematic review.

Conclusions: the results of this study demonstrate how 85% of NIHR HTA trials use systematic reviews to inform the design and planning of a new trial. Systematic reviews play an important role in the development of clinical trials and the implications of this will be discussed.

Text
1745-6215-16-S2-O3 - Version of Record
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
Download (294kB)

More information

e-pub ahead of print date: 16 November 2015
Published date: 1 December 2015
Organisations: Primary Care & Population Sciences, Research, NETSCC, Astronautics Group

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 408085
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/408085
ISSN: 1745-6215
PURE UUID: f49c906f-8953-4ce5-b6a7-cea7ecff0148
ORCID for Amanda Young: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-1486-5561

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 11 May 2017 01:08
Last modified: 16 Mar 2024 03:31

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Sheetal Bhurke
Author: Andrew Cook
Author: Anna Tallant
Author: Amanda Young ORCID iD
Author: Elaine Williams
Author: James Raftery

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×