Cargando…

Protocol for a scoping review of post-trial extensions of randomised controlled trials using individually linked administrative and registry data

INTRODUCTION: Well-conducted randomised controlled trials (RCTs) provide the least biased estimates of intervention effects. However, RCTs are costly and time-consuming to perform and long-term follow-up of participants may be hampered by lost contacts and financial constraints. Advances in computin...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fitzpatrick, Tiffany, Perrier, Laure, Tricco, Andrea C, Straus, Sharon E, Jüni, Peter, Zwarenstein, Merrick, Lix, Lisa M, Smith, Mark, Rosella, Laura C, Henry, David A
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5318569/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28213601
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013770
_version_ 1782509217592115200
author Fitzpatrick, Tiffany
Perrier, Laure
Tricco, Andrea C
Straus, Sharon E
Jüni, Peter
Zwarenstein, Merrick
Lix, Lisa M
Smith, Mark
Rosella, Laura C
Henry, David A
author_facet Fitzpatrick, Tiffany
Perrier, Laure
Tricco, Andrea C
Straus, Sharon E
Jüni, Peter
Zwarenstein, Merrick
Lix, Lisa M
Smith, Mark
Rosella, Laura C
Henry, David A
author_sort Fitzpatrick, Tiffany
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Well-conducted randomised controlled trials (RCTs) provide the least biased estimates of intervention effects. However, RCTs are costly and time-consuming to perform and long-term follow-up of participants may be hampered by lost contacts and financial constraints. Advances in computing and population-based registries have created new possibilities for increasing the value of RCTs by post-trial extension using linkage to routinely collected administrative/registry data in order to determine long-term interventional effects. There have been recent important examples, including 20+ years follow-up studies of trials of pravastatin and mammography. Despite the potential value of post-trial extension, there has been no systematic study of this literature. This scoping review aims to characterise published post-trial extension studies, assess their value, and identify any potential challenges associated with this approach. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This review will use the recommended methods for scoping reviews. We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. A draft search strategy is included in this protocol. Review of titles and abstracts, full texts of potentially eligible studies and data/information extraction will be conducted independently by pairs of investigators. Eligible studies will be RCTs that investigated healthcare interventions that were extended by individual linkage to administrative/registry/electronic medical records data after the completion of the planned follow-up period. Information concerning the original trial, characteristics of the extension study, any clinical, policy or ethical implications and methodological or practical challenges will be collected using standardised forms. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As this study uses secondary data, and does not include person-level data, ethics approval is not required. We aim to disseminate these findings through journals and conferences targeting triallists and researchers involved in health data linkage. We aim to produce guidance for investigators on the conduct of post-trial extensions using routinely collected data.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5318569
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-53185692017-02-27 Protocol for a scoping review of post-trial extensions of randomised controlled trials using individually linked administrative and registry data Fitzpatrick, Tiffany Perrier, Laure Tricco, Andrea C Straus, Sharon E Jüni, Peter Zwarenstein, Merrick Lix, Lisa M Smith, Mark Rosella, Laura C Henry, David A BMJ Open Evidence Based Practice INTRODUCTION: Well-conducted randomised controlled trials (RCTs) provide the least biased estimates of intervention effects. However, RCTs are costly and time-consuming to perform and long-term follow-up of participants may be hampered by lost contacts and financial constraints. Advances in computing and population-based registries have created new possibilities for increasing the value of RCTs by post-trial extension using linkage to routinely collected administrative/registry data in order to determine long-term interventional effects. There have been recent important examples, including 20+ years follow-up studies of trials of pravastatin and mammography. Despite the potential value of post-trial extension, there has been no systematic study of this literature. This scoping review aims to characterise published post-trial extension studies, assess their value, and identify any potential challenges associated with this approach. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This review will use the recommended methods for scoping reviews. We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. A draft search strategy is included in this protocol. Review of titles and abstracts, full texts of potentially eligible studies and data/information extraction will be conducted independently by pairs of investigators. Eligible studies will be RCTs that investigated healthcare interventions that were extended by individual linkage to administrative/registry/electronic medical records data after the completion of the planned follow-up period. Information concerning the original trial, characteristics of the extension study, any clinical, policy or ethical implications and methodological or practical challenges will be collected using standardised forms. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As this study uses secondary data, and does not include person-level data, ethics approval is not required. We aim to disseminate these findings through journals and conferences targeting triallists and researchers involved in health data linkage. We aim to produce guidance for investigators on the conduct of post-trial extensions using routinely collected data. BMJ Publishing Group 2017-02-17 /pmc/articles/PMC5318569/ /pubmed/28213601 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013770 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/ This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
spellingShingle Evidence Based Practice
Fitzpatrick, Tiffany
Perrier, Laure
Tricco, Andrea C
Straus, Sharon E
Jüni, Peter
Zwarenstein, Merrick
Lix, Lisa M
Smith, Mark
Rosella, Laura C
Henry, David A
Protocol for a scoping review of post-trial extensions of randomised controlled trials using individually linked administrative and registry data
title Protocol for a scoping review of post-trial extensions of randomised controlled trials using individually linked administrative and registry data
title_full Protocol for a scoping review of post-trial extensions of randomised controlled trials using individually linked administrative and registry data
title_fullStr Protocol for a scoping review of post-trial extensions of randomised controlled trials using individually linked administrative and registry data
title_full_unstemmed Protocol for a scoping review of post-trial extensions of randomised controlled trials using individually linked administrative and registry data
title_short Protocol for a scoping review of post-trial extensions of randomised controlled trials using individually linked administrative and registry data
title_sort protocol for a scoping review of post-trial extensions of randomised controlled trials using individually linked administrative and registry data
topic Evidence Based Practice
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5318569/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28213601
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013770
work_keys_str_mv AT fitzpatricktiffany protocolforascopingreviewofposttrialextensionsofrandomisedcontrolledtrialsusingindividuallylinkedadministrativeandregistrydata
AT perrierlaure protocolforascopingreviewofposttrialextensionsofrandomisedcontrolledtrialsusingindividuallylinkedadministrativeandregistrydata
AT triccoandreac protocolforascopingreviewofposttrialextensionsofrandomisedcontrolledtrialsusingindividuallylinkedadministrativeandregistrydata
AT straussharone protocolforascopingreviewofposttrialextensionsofrandomisedcontrolledtrialsusingindividuallylinkedadministrativeandregistrydata
AT junipeter protocolforascopingreviewofposttrialextensionsofrandomisedcontrolledtrialsusingindividuallylinkedadministrativeandregistrydata
AT zwarensteinmerrick protocolforascopingreviewofposttrialextensionsofrandomisedcontrolledtrialsusingindividuallylinkedadministrativeandregistrydata
AT lixlisam protocolforascopingreviewofposttrialextensionsofrandomisedcontrolledtrialsusingindividuallylinkedadministrativeandregistrydata
AT smithmark protocolforascopingreviewofposttrialextensionsofrandomisedcontrolledtrialsusingindividuallylinkedadministrativeandregistrydata
AT rosellalaurac protocolforascopingreviewofposttrialextensionsofrandomisedcontrolledtrialsusingindividuallylinkedadministrativeandregistrydata
AT henrydavida protocolforascopingreviewofposttrialextensionsofrandomisedcontrolledtrialsusingindividuallylinkedadministrativeandregistrydata