Cargando…
Defining key design elements of registry-based randomised controlled trials: a scoping review
BACKGROUND: Traditional randomised controlled trials remain the gold standard for improving clinical care but they do have their limitations, including their associated high costs, high failure rate and limited external validity. An alternative methodology is the newly defined, prospective, registry...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7310018/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32571382 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-020-04459-z |
_version_ | 1783549287467057152 |
---|---|
author | Karanatsios, Bill Prang, Khic-Houy Verbunt, Ebony Yeung, Justin M. Kelaher, Margaret Gibbs, Peter |
author_facet | Karanatsios, Bill Prang, Khic-Houy Verbunt, Ebony Yeung, Justin M. Kelaher, Margaret Gibbs, Peter |
author_sort | Karanatsios, Bill |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Traditional randomised controlled trials remain the gold standard for improving clinical care but they do have their limitations, including their associated high costs, high failure rate and limited external validity. An alternative methodology is the newly defined, prospective, registry-based randomised controlled trial (RRCT), where treatment and outcome data is collected in an existing registry. This scoping review explores the current literature regarding RRCTs to help identify the key design elements of RRCTs and the characteristics of clinical registries on which they are reliant on. METHODS: A scoping review methodology conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines was performed. Four databases were searched for articles published from inception to June 2018: Medline; Embase; the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and; Scopus. The search strategy included MeSH and text words related to RRCT. RESULTS: We identified 2369 articles of which 75 were selected for full-text screening. Of these, only 17 articles satisfied our inclusion criteria. All studies were published between 1996 and 2017 and all were investigator-initiated. Study designs were mainly multi-site comparative/effectiveness studies incorporating the use of disease registries (n = 8), procedure registries (n = 8) and a health services registry (n = 1). The low cost, reduced administrative burden and enhanced external validity of RRCTs make them an attractive research methodology which can be used to address questions of public health importance. We identified that that there are variable definitions of what constituted a RRCT and that issues related to ethical conduct and data integrity, completeness, timeliness, validation and endpoint adjudication need to be carefully addressed. CONCLUSION: RRCTs potentially have an important role to play in informing best clinical practice and health policy. There are a number of issues that need to be addressed to optimise the utility of this approach, including establishing universally accepted criteria for the definition of a RRCT. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7310018 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-73100182020-06-23 Defining key design elements of registry-based randomised controlled trials: a scoping review Karanatsios, Bill Prang, Khic-Houy Verbunt, Ebony Yeung, Justin M. Kelaher, Margaret Gibbs, Peter Trials Review BACKGROUND: Traditional randomised controlled trials remain the gold standard for improving clinical care but they do have their limitations, including their associated high costs, high failure rate and limited external validity. An alternative methodology is the newly defined, prospective, registry-based randomised controlled trial (RRCT), where treatment and outcome data is collected in an existing registry. This scoping review explores the current literature regarding RRCTs to help identify the key design elements of RRCTs and the characteristics of clinical registries on which they are reliant on. METHODS: A scoping review methodology conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines was performed. Four databases were searched for articles published from inception to June 2018: Medline; Embase; the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and; Scopus. The search strategy included MeSH and text words related to RRCT. RESULTS: We identified 2369 articles of which 75 were selected for full-text screening. Of these, only 17 articles satisfied our inclusion criteria. All studies were published between 1996 and 2017 and all were investigator-initiated. Study designs were mainly multi-site comparative/effectiveness studies incorporating the use of disease registries (n = 8), procedure registries (n = 8) and a health services registry (n = 1). The low cost, reduced administrative burden and enhanced external validity of RRCTs make them an attractive research methodology which can be used to address questions of public health importance. We identified that that there are variable definitions of what constituted a RRCT and that issues related to ethical conduct and data integrity, completeness, timeliness, validation and endpoint adjudication need to be carefully addressed. CONCLUSION: RRCTs potentially have an important role to play in informing best clinical practice and health policy. There are a number of issues that need to be addressed to optimise the utility of this approach, including establishing universally accepted criteria for the definition of a RRCT. BioMed Central 2020-06-22 /pmc/articles/PMC7310018/ /pubmed/32571382 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-020-04459-z Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Review Karanatsios, Bill Prang, Khic-Houy Verbunt, Ebony Yeung, Justin M. Kelaher, Margaret Gibbs, Peter Defining key design elements of registry-based randomised controlled trials: a scoping review |
title | Defining key design elements of registry-based randomised controlled trials: a scoping review |
title_full | Defining key design elements of registry-based randomised controlled trials: a scoping review |
title_fullStr | Defining key design elements of registry-based randomised controlled trials: a scoping review |
title_full_unstemmed | Defining key design elements of registry-based randomised controlled trials: a scoping review |
title_short | Defining key design elements of registry-based randomised controlled trials: a scoping review |
title_sort | defining key design elements of registry-based randomised controlled trials: a scoping review |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7310018/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32571382 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-020-04459-z |
work_keys_str_mv | AT karanatsiosbill definingkeydesignelementsofregistrybasedrandomisedcontrolledtrialsascopingreview AT prangkhichouy definingkeydesignelementsofregistrybasedrandomisedcontrolledtrialsascopingreview AT verbuntebony definingkeydesignelementsofregistrybasedrandomisedcontrolledtrialsascopingreview AT yeungjustinm definingkeydesignelementsofregistrybasedrandomisedcontrolledtrialsascopingreview AT kelahermargaret definingkeydesignelementsofregistrybasedrandomisedcontrolledtrialsascopingreview AT gibbspeter definingkeydesignelementsofregistrybasedrandomisedcontrolledtrialsascopingreview |