Cargando…

Approaches to prioritising research for clinical trial networks: a scoping review

BACKGROUND: Prioritisation of clinical trials ensures that the research conducted meets the needs of stakeholders, makes the best use of resources and avoids duplication. The aim of this review was to identify and critically appraise approaches to research prioritisation applicable to clinical trial...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Morton, Rachael L., Tuffaha, Haitham, Blaya-Novakova, Vendula, Spencer, Jenean, Hawley, Carmel M., Peyton, Phil, Higgins, Alisa, Marsh, Julie, Taylor, William J., Huckson, Sue, Sillett, Amy, Schneemann, Kieran, Balagurunanthan, Anitha, Cumpston, Miranda, Scuffham, Paul A., Glasziou, Paul, Simes, Robert J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9743749/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36510214
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-022-06928-z
_version_ 1784848790044278784
author Morton, Rachael L.
Tuffaha, Haitham
Blaya-Novakova, Vendula
Spencer, Jenean
Hawley, Carmel M.
Peyton, Phil
Higgins, Alisa
Marsh, Julie
Taylor, William J.
Huckson, Sue
Sillett, Amy
Schneemann, Kieran
Balagurunanthan, Anitha
Cumpston, Miranda
Scuffham, Paul A.
Glasziou, Paul
Simes, Robert J.
author_facet Morton, Rachael L.
Tuffaha, Haitham
Blaya-Novakova, Vendula
Spencer, Jenean
Hawley, Carmel M.
Peyton, Phil
Higgins, Alisa
Marsh, Julie
Taylor, William J.
Huckson, Sue
Sillett, Amy
Schneemann, Kieran
Balagurunanthan, Anitha
Cumpston, Miranda
Scuffham, Paul A.
Glasziou, Paul
Simes, Robert J.
author_sort Morton, Rachael L.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Prioritisation of clinical trials ensures that the research conducted meets the needs of stakeholders, makes the best use of resources and avoids duplication. The aim of this review was to identify and critically appraise approaches to research prioritisation applicable to clinical trials, to inform best practice guidelines for clinical trial networks and funders. METHODS: A scoping review of English-language published literature and research organisation websites (January 2000 to January 2020) was undertaken to identify primary studies, approaches and criteria for research prioritisation. Data were extracted and tabulated, and a narrative synthesis was employed. RESULTS: Seventy-eight primary studies and 18 websites were included. The majority of research prioritisation occurred in oncology and neurology disciplines. The main reasons for prioritisation were to address a knowledge gap (51 of 78 studies [65%]) and to define patient-important topics (28 studies, [35%]). In addition, research organisations prioritised in order to support their institution’s mission, invest strategically, and identify best return on investment. Fifty-seven of 78 (73%) studies used interpretative prioritisation approaches (including Delphi surveys, James Lind Alliance and consensus workshops); six studies used quantitative approaches (8%) such as prospective payback or value of information (VOI) analyses; and 14 studies used blended approaches (18%) such as nominal group technique and Child Health Nutritional Research Initiative. Main criteria for prioritisation included relevance, appropriateness, significance, feasibility and cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSION: Current research prioritisation approaches for groups conducting and funding clinical trials are largely interpretative. There is an opportunity to improve the transparency of prioritisation through the inclusion of quantitative approaches.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9743749
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-97437492022-12-13 Approaches to prioritising research for clinical trial networks: a scoping review Morton, Rachael L. Tuffaha, Haitham Blaya-Novakova, Vendula Spencer, Jenean Hawley, Carmel M. Peyton, Phil Higgins, Alisa Marsh, Julie Taylor, William J. Huckson, Sue Sillett, Amy Schneemann, Kieran Balagurunanthan, Anitha Cumpston, Miranda Scuffham, Paul A. Glasziou, Paul Simes, Robert J. Trials Review BACKGROUND: Prioritisation of clinical trials ensures that the research conducted meets the needs of stakeholders, makes the best use of resources and avoids duplication. The aim of this review was to identify and critically appraise approaches to research prioritisation applicable to clinical trials, to inform best practice guidelines for clinical trial networks and funders. METHODS: A scoping review of English-language published literature and research organisation websites (January 2000 to January 2020) was undertaken to identify primary studies, approaches and criteria for research prioritisation. Data were extracted and tabulated, and a narrative synthesis was employed. RESULTS: Seventy-eight primary studies and 18 websites were included. The majority of research prioritisation occurred in oncology and neurology disciplines. The main reasons for prioritisation were to address a knowledge gap (51 of 78 studies [65%]) and to define patient-important topics (28 studies, [35%]). In addition, research organisations prioritised in order to support their institution’s mission, invest strategically, and identify best return on investment. Fifty-seven of 78 (73%) studies used interpretative prioritisation approaches (including Delphi surveys, James Lind Alliance and consensus workshops); six studies used quantitative approaches (8%) such as prospective payback or value of information (VOI) analyses; and 14 studies used blended approaches (18%) such as nominal group technique and Child Health Nutritional Research Initiative. Main criteria for prioritisation included relevance, appropriateness, significance, feasibility and cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSION: Current research prioritisation approaches for groups conducting and funding clinical trials are largely interpretative. There is an opportunity to improve the transparency of prioritisation through the inclusion of quantitative approaches. BioMed Central 2022-12-12 /pmc/articles/PMC9743749/ /pubmed/36510214 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-022-06928-z Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/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/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://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
Morton, Rachael L.
Tuffaha, Haitham
Blaya-Novakova, Vendula
Spencer, Jenean
Hawley, Carmel M.
Peyton, Phil
Higgins, Alisa
Marsh, Julie
Taylor, William J.
Huckson, Sue
Sillett, Amy
Schneemann, Kieran
Balagurunanthan, Anitha
Cumpston, Miranda
Scuffham, Paul A.
Glasziou, Paul
Simes, Robert J.
Approaches to prioritising research for clinical trial networks: a scoping review
title Approaches to prioritising research for clinical trial networks: a scoping review
title_full Approaches to prioritising research for clinical trial networks: a scoping review
title_fullStr Approaches to prioritising research for clinical trial networks: a scoping review
title_full_unstemmed Approaches to prioritising research for clinical trial networks: a scoping review
title_short Approaches to prioritising research for clinical trial networks: a scoping review
title_sort approaches to prioritising research for clinical trial networks: a scoping review
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9743749/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36510214
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-022-06928-z
work_keys_str_mv AT mortonrachaell approachestoprioritisingresearchforclinicaltrialnetworksascopingreview
AT tuffahahaitham approachestoprioritisingresearchforclinicaltrialnetworksascopingreview
AT blayanovakovavendula approachestoprioritisingresearchforclinicaltrialnetworksascopingreview
AT spencerjenean approachestoprioritisingresearchforclinicaltrialnetworksascopingreview
AT hawleycarmelm approachestoprioritisingresearchforclinicaltrialnetworksascopingreview
AT peytonphil approachestoprioritisingresearchforclinicaltrialnetworksascopingreview
AT higginsalisa approachestoprioritisingresearchforclinicaltrialnetworksascopingreview
AT marshjulie approachestoprioritisingresearchforclinicaltrialnetworksascopingreview
AT taylorwilliamj approachestoprioritisingresearchforclinicaltrialnetworksascopingreview
AT hucksonsue approachestoprioritisingresearchforclinicaltrialnetworksascopingreview
AT sillettamy approachestoprioritisingresearchforclinicaltrialnetworksascopingreview
AT schneemannkieran approachestoprioritisingresearchforclinicaltrialnetworksascopingreview
AT balagurunanthananitha approachestoprioritisingresearchforclinicaltrialnetworksascopingreview
AT cumpstonmiranda approachestoprioritisingresearchforclinicaltrialnetworksascopingreview
AT scuffhampaula approachestoprioritisingresearchforclinicaltrialnetworksascopingreview
AT glaszioupaul approachestoprioritisingresearchforclinicaltrialnetworksascopingreview
AT simesrobertj approachestoprioritisingresearchforclinicaltrialnetworksascopingreview