Approaches to prioritising research for clinical trial networks: a scoping review.
Clinical trial networks
Cost-effectiveness
Prioritisation
Review
Journal
Trials
ISSN: 1745-6215
Titre abrégé: Trials
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101263253
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 Dec 2022
12 Dec 2022
Historique:
received:
26
07
2021
accepted:
15
11
2022
entrez:
12
12
2022
pubmed:
13
12
2022
medline:
15
12
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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. 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.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
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
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
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
CONCLUSIONS
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36510214
doi: 10.1186/s13063-022-06928-z
pii: 10.1186/s13063-022-06928-z
pmc: PMC9743749
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1000Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Health Expect. 2008 Dec;11(4):418-31
pubmed: 18798760
Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2016 Sep;13(9):S379-84
pubmed: 27627485
J Pediatr Oncol Nurs. 2000 Apr;17(2):83-7
pubmed: 10810834
Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:191809
pubmed: 26495288
Eur Respir J. 2016 Sep;48(3):632-47
pubmed: 27288031
Arch Dis Child. 2017 Aug;102(8):748-753
pubmed: 28404552
Diabet Med. 2012 Oct;29(10):1321-6
pubmed: 22823450
J Glob Health. 2017 Jun;7(1):011003
pubmed: 28686749
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2019 May;236:240-248
pubmed: 30711217
J Parkinsons Dis. 2013 Jan 1;3(3):231-9
pubmed: 24018336
J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Feb;70:183-90
pubmed: 26388041
BMJ Open. 2015 Dec 16;5(12):e010006
pubmed: 26674506
Croat Med J. 2008 Dec;49(6):720-33
pubmed: 19090596
Spinal Cord. 2015 Oct;53(10):729-37
pubmed: 26099211
Value Health. 2020 Mar;23(3):277-286
pubmed: 32197720
Health Econ. 2007 Dec;16(12):1345-57
pubmed: 17328053
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Dec;46(6):641-7
pubmed: 26336941
BMJ Open. 2016 May 24;6(5):e011780
pubmed: 27221129
Contraception. 2015 Oct;92(4):282-8
pubmed: 26277866
Res Social Adm Pharm. 2019 Jun;15(6):801-805
pubmed: 30241876
Pediatr Rheumatol Online J. 2008 Apr 01;6:5
pubmed: 18380905
Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2009 Jan;28(1 Suppl):S43-8
pubmed: 19106763
Semin Dial. 2015 Mar-Apr;28(2):141-6
pubmed: 25440522
Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2006 Sep;12(9):885-913
pubmed: 16954808
MDM Policy Pract. 2016 Jul 07;1(1):2381468316642238
pubmed: 30288400
Gynecol Oncol. 2016 Nov;143(2):287-293
pubmed: 27593736
Health Econ. 1999 Feb;8(1):1-8
pubmed: 10082139
J Crohns Colitis. 2017 Feb;11(2):204-211
pubmed: 27506537
BMC Public Health. 2014 Feb 20;14:182
pubmed: 24552445
Can J Urol. 2007 Feb;14(1):3416-23
pubmed: 17324320
Am J Kidney Dis. 2015 Aug;66(2):212-22
pubmed: 25943716
Pediatr Rheumatol Online J. 2019 Jul 1;17(1):32
pubmed: 31262324
Med Decis Making. 2013 May;33(4):463-71
pubmed: 23635833
Injury. 2010 Jul;41(7):763-7
pubmed: 20403599
Public Health Nutr. 2009 Mar;12(3):389-96
pubmed: 18426636
Genet Med. 2013 Feb;15(2):115-22
pubmed: 23037935
J Ethnopharmacol. 2012 Apr 10;140(3):604-13
pubmed: 22338645
J Gen Intern Med. 2015 Dec;30(12):1812-20
pubmed: 26014894
Int J Stroke. 2014 Apr;9(3):313-20
pubmed: 23227818
BMJ Open. 2014 Dec 14;4(12):e006434
pubmed: 25500772
Med Decis Making. 2016 Apr;36(3):321-34
pubmed: 26209474
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2009 Jan 09;10:3
pubmed: 19134184
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000 Winter;16(1):73-91
pubmed: 10815355
Age Ageing. 2015 Nov;44(6):985-93
pubmed: 26504119
Lung Cancer. 2015 Aug;89(2):175-80
pubmed: 26115838
Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2014 Jun 27;10:1057-68
pubmed: 25061300
Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2014 Oct 7;9(10):1813-21
pubmed: 24832095
Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2019 Sep;16(9):e17-e32
pubmed: 31469310
Med Care. 2012 May;50(5):388-93
pubmed: 22274803
Br J Dermatol. 2014 Dec;171(6):1422-7
pubmed: 24903313
Ann Intern Med. 2018 Oct 2;169(7):467-473
pubmed: 30178033
Cancer Med. 2018 Sep;7(9):4251-4260
pubmed: 30030904
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019 Oct 15;200(8):972-981
pubmed: 31161771
Bone Joint J. 2018 May 1;100-B(5):680-684
pubmed: 29701090
Eur J Public Health. 2015 Apr;25(2):249-54
pubmed: 25678606
Br J Anaesth. 2012 Jan;108(1):42-52
pubmed: 22157447
Spinal Cord. 2016 May;54(5):341-6
pubmed: 26554273
Age Ageing. 2017 Mar 1;46(2):284-290
pubmed: 27852597
BMJ Open. 2016 Apr 11;6(4):e010412
pubmed: 27067892
J Glaucoma. 2015 Jun-Jul;24(5):348-55
pubmed: 23835674
Value Health. 2020 Feb;23(2):139-150
pubmed: 32113617
Chest. 2018 Nov;154(5):1016-1023
pubmed: 29981718
BMJ Open. 2019 Aug 5;9(8):e028119
pubmed: 31383701
J Vasc Nurs. 2010 Dec;28(4):121-31
pubmed: 21074114
Healthc Manage Forum. 2013 Spring;26(1):33-6
pubmed: 23798255
Health Res Policy Syst. 2010 Dec 15;8:36
pubmed: 21159163
Br J Dermatol. 2017 May;176(5):1316-1320
pubmed: 27696375
BMJ Open. 2015 Jan 28;5(1):e006233
pubmed: 25631309
Clin Transl Gastroenterol. 2014 Jan 02;5:e45
pubmed: 24384867
Emerg Med Australas. 2014 Feb;26(1):28-33
pubmed: 24495058
Res Involv Engagem. 2019 Aug 20;5:24
pubmed: 31452934
Acad Emerg Med. 2014 Dec;21(12):1307-17
pubmed: 25420469
BMJ Open. 2014 Jul 23;4(7):e004905
pubmed: 25056971
Can J Occup Ther. 2016 Feb;83(1):7-13
pubmed: 26755039
Pediatr Neurol. 2016 May;58:12-24
pubmed: 27268758
Oncol Nurs Forum. 2017 Mar 1;44(2):192-203
pubmed: 28222079
Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2019 Jun;55(3):322-330
pubmed: 30947492
J Adv Nurs. 2016 Nov;72(11):2831-2843
pubmed: 27322215
Med Decis Making. 2016 Jul;36(5):641-51
pubmed: 27012232
Stroke. 2013 Aug;44(8):2338-42
pubmed: 23821224
Health Res Policy Syst. 2018 Oct 9;16(Suppl 1):94
pubmed: 30301455
PLoS One. 2016 Oct 24;11(10):e0162136
pubmed: 27776143
BMC Res Notes. 2018 Mar 1;11(1):159
pubmed: 29490667
Mil Med. 2005 May;170(5):362-5
pubmed: 15974200
BMJ Open. 2018 Dec 22;8(12):e026207
pubmed: 30580278
Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2016 Jan;5:97-104
pubmed: 26856952
Cornea. 2017 Dec;36(12):1584-1591
pubmed: 28914633
Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2003 Dec;15(8):496-9
pubmed: 14690007