A review of sample sizes for UK pilot and feasibility studies on the ISRCTN registry from 2013 to 2020.

Feasibility ISRCTN Pilot Review Sample size

Journal

Pilot and feasibility studies
ISSN: 2055-5784
Titre abrégé: Pilot Feasibility Stud
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101676536

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
21 Nov 2023
Historique:
received: 11 04 2023
accepted: 08 11 2023
medline: 22 11 2023
pubmed: 22 11 2023
entrez: 22 11 2023
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Pilot and feasibility studies provide information to be used when planning a full trial. A sufficient sample size within the pilot/feasibility study is required so this information can be extracted with suitable precision. This work builds upon previous reviews of pilot and feasibility studies to evaluate whether the target sample size aligns with recent recommendations and whether these targets are being reached. A review of the ISRCTN registry was completed using the keywords "pilot" and "feasibility". The inclusion criteria were UK-based randomised interventional trials that started between 2013 (end of the previous review) and 2020. Target sample size, actual sample size and key design characteristics were extracted. Descriptive statistics were used to present sample sizes overall and by key characteristics. In total, 761 studies were included in the review of which 448 (59%) were labelled feasibility studies, 244 (32%) pilot studies and 69 (9%) described as both pilot and feasibility studies. Over all included pilot and feasibility studies (n = 761), the median target sample size was 30 (IQR 20-50). This was consistent when split by those labelled as a pilot or feasibility study. Slightly larger sample sizes (median = 33, IQR 20-50) were shown for those labelled both pilot and feasibility (n = 69). Studies with a continuous outcome (n = 592) had a median target sample size of 30 (IQR 20-43) whereas, in line with recommendations, this was larger for those with binary outcomes (median = 50, IQR 25-81, n = 97). There was no descriptive difference in the target sample size based on funder type. In studies where the achieved sample size was available (n = 301), 173 (57%) did not reach their sample size target; however, the median difference between the target and actual sample sizes was small at just minus four participants (IQR -25-0). Target sample sizes for pilot and feasibility studies have remained constant since the last review in 2013. Most studies in the review satisfy the earlier and more lenient recommendations however do not satisfy the most recent largest recommendation. Additionally, most studies did not reach their target sample size meaning the information collected may not be sufficient to estimate the required parameters for future definitive randomised controlled trials.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Pilot and feasibility studies provide information to be used when planning a full trial. A sufficient sample size within the pilot/feasibility study is required so this information can be extracted with suitable precision. This work builds upon previous reviews of pilot and feasibility studies to evaluate whether the target sample size aligns with recent recommendations and whether these targets are being reached.
METHODS METHODS
A review of the ISRCTN registry was completed using the keywords "pilot" and "feasibility". The inclusion criteria were UK-based randomised interventional trials that started between 2013 (end of the previous review) and 2020. Target sample size, actual sample size and key design characteristics were extracted. Descriptive statistics were used to present sample sizes overall and by key characteristics.
RESULTS RESULTS
In total, 761 studies were included in the review of which 448 (59%) were labelled feasibility studies, 244 (32%) pilot studies and 69 (9%) described as both pilot and feasibility studies. Over all included pilot and feasibility studies (n = 761), the median target sample size was 30 (IQR 20-50). This was consistent when split by those labelled as a pilot or feasibility study. Slightly larger sample sizes (median = 33, IQR 20-50) were shown for those labelled both pilot and feasibility (n = 69). Studies with a continuous outcome (n = 592) had a median target sample size of 30 (IQR 20-43) whereas, in line with recommendations, this was larger for those with binary outcomes (median = 50, IQR 25-81, n = 97). There was no descriptive difference in the target sample size based on funder type. In studies where the achieved sample size was available (n = 301), 173 (57%) did not reach their sample size target; however, the median difference between the target and actual sample sizes was small at just minus four participants (IQR -25-0).
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Target sample sizes for pilot and feasibility studies have remained constant since the last review in 2013. Most studies in the review satisfy the earlier and more lenient recommendations however do not satisfy the most recent largest recommendation. Additionally, most studies did not reach their target sample size meaning the information collected may not be sufficient to estimate the required parameters for future definitive randomised controlled trials.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37990337
doi: 10.1186/s40814-023-01416-w
pii: 10.1186/s40814-023-01416-w
pmc: PMC10662929
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Review

Langues

eng

Pagination

188

Informations de copyright

© 2023. The Author(s).

Références

Trials. 2014 Jul 03;15:264
pubmed: 24993581
BMJ Open. 2017 Feb 17;7(2):e013537
pubmed: 28213598
Clin Trials. 2018 Apr;15(2):189-196
pubmed: 29361833
Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2019 Aug 28;5:107
pubmed: 31485336
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010 Jan 06;10:1
pubmed: 20053272
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010 Jul 16;10:67
pubmed: 20637084
J Evid Based Med. 2011;4(3):188-92
pubmed: 21894613
Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2015;1(1):1
pubmed: 29611687
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013 Aug 20;13:104
pubmed: 23961782
J Clin Epidemiol. 2012 Mar;65(3):301-8
pubmed: 22169081
Stat Methods Med Res. 2016 Jun;25(3):1057-73
pubmed: 26092476
PLoS One. 2016 Mar 15;11(3):e0150205
pubmed: 26978655
Trials. 2018 Oct 10;19(1):544
pubmed: 30305146
Am J Prev Med. 2009 May;36(5):452-7
pubmed: 19362699
BMJ Open. 2022 Feb 14;12(2):e059230
pubmed: 35165116
Clin Rehabil. 2017 Sep;31(9):1238-1248
pubmed: 28786333
J Eval Clin Pract. 2004 May;10(2):307-12
pubmed: 15189396
Nurs Stand. 2002 Jun 19-25;16(40):33-6
pubmed: 12216297
Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2021 Feb 3;7(1):40
pubmed: 33536076
Stat Med. 2012 May 20;31(11-12):1031-42
pubmed: 22052407

Auteurs

Nikki Totton (N)

School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK. n.v.totton@sheffield.ac.uk.

Jinfeng Lin (J)

School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK.

Steven Julious (S)

School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK.

Mahima Chowdhury (M)

Medicine, Dentistry and Health, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.

Andrew Brand (A)

North Wales Organisation for Randomised Trials in Health & Social Care, Bangor University, Bangor, Wales.

Classifications MeSH