Value of surgical pilot and feasibility study protocols



Fairhurst, K, Blazeby, JM, Potter, S, Gamble, C ORCID: 0000-0002-3021-1955, Rowlands, C and Avery, KNL
(2019) Value of surgical pilot and feasibility study protocols. British Journal of Surgery, 106 (8). 968 - 978.

Access the full-text of this item by clicking on the Open Access link.

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.

Item Type: Article
Depositing User: Symplectic Admin
Date Deposited: 15 May 2019 08:15
Last Modified: 20 Dec 2021 16:10
DOI: 10.1002/bjs.11167
Open Access URL: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/b...
Related URLs:
URI: https://livrepository.liverpool.ac.uk/id/eprint/3041215