Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2019 Sep 18;20(1):571.
doi: 10.1186/s13063-019-3669-9.

A review of current practice in the design and assessment of internal pilots in UK NIHR clinical trials

Affiliations
Review

A review of current practice in the design and assessment of internal pilots in UK NIHR clinical trials

Anna Rosala-Hallas et al. Trials. .

Abstract

Background: Internal pilots provide useful information which can help to optimise the running of the main trial. Although some recommendations exist in the literature for the design of internal pilots, little is known about current practice in terms of the specification and also the assessment of progression criteria. The aim of the review is to provide an overview of current practice.

Methods: A cohort of clinical trials with an internal pilot, funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Health Technology Assessment programme (HTA), extracted in 2017 was reviewed. Data were extracted from: project descriptions; summary of changes from the first stage; feedback about the full application; monitoring notes; progress report history and protocols, for information about the design and assessment of internal pilots.

Results: Fifty-seven studies were reviewed. An internal pilot was first proposed in the early stages of the trial in the majority of cases. Target number for recruitment, rate of randomisation, retention/primary outcome ascertainment rate, rate of treatment adherence and consent rate were included as progression criteria. All but one study was permitted to continue to the main trial; however, 25% did not strictly meet the progression criteria. Changes were made to the design of the main trial for 25% of studies, mainly in terms of conduct of recruitment.

Conclusions: This review provides insight into the process of designing and assessing internal pilots. Progression criteria are sometimes not met; however, committees involved in the reviewing process will recommend continuation to the main trial, usually accompanied by a second review or close monitoring. Recommendations are made to optimise the process.

Keywords: Clinical trials; Internal pilot; Methodological research.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

    1. Blatch-Jones AJ, Pek W, Kirkpatrick E, Ashton-Key M. Role of feasibility and pilot studies in randomised controlled trials: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. 2018;8:e022233. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022233. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lancaster GA, Dodd S, Williamson PR. Design and analysis of pilot studies: recommendations for good practice. J Eval Clin Pract. 2004;10:307–312. doi: 10.1111/j..2002.384.doc.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. NIHR.:Feasibility and Pilot Studies. 2018. https://www.nihr.ac.uk/funding-and-support/documents/funding-for-researc.... Accessed on 21 Dec 2018.
    1. Avery KN, Williamson PR, Gamble C, O’Connell Francischetto E, Metcalfe C, Davidson P, Williams H, Blazeby JM. members of the Internal Pilot Trials Workshop supported by the Hubs for Trials Methodology Research. Informing efficient randomised controlled trials: exploration of challenges in developing progression criteria for internal pilot studies. BMJ Open. 2017;7:e013537. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013537. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hampson LV, Williamson PR, Wilby MJ, Jaki T. A framework for prospectively defining progression rules for internal pilot studies monitoring recruitment. Stat Methods Med Res. 2018;27:3612–3627. doi: 10.1177/0962280217708906. - DOI - PubMed