Skip to main content
Download PDF

Volume 16 Supplement 2

3rd International Clinical Trials Methodology Conference

How are systematic reviews used in the planning and design of health technology assessment funded trials?

Trials volume 16, Article number: O3 (2015) Cite this article

Background

Limited evidence exists on how systematic reviews are used in the design of new trials. A study by Jones (2013) showed that 11 out of 48 applications made no reference to a systematic review. Of the 37 trials referencing a systematic review 20 reported their use in the design of the trial.

Objectives

To replicate and verify Jones' study and explore the reasons why some trials do not refer or use a systematic review. The study also included an updated cohort of NIHR HTA trials to identify any improvements over time.

Methods

Two cohorts of NIHR HTA randomised controlled trials were included. Cohort I included the same trials as Jones (2006-2008). Cohort II included NIHR HTA trials funded in 2013. Data extraction was undertaken independently by two reviewers and results were presented using descriptive statistics.

Results

Justifying the need for new primary research using a systematic review is not always feasible. Our study found nine (19%) and three (9%) trials from cohort I and II respectively where a systematic review was not referenced. Although our findings were similar to Jones, we found all nine trials had a justifiable reason for not referring to a systematic review.

Conclusions

The results of this study demonstrate how 85% of NIHR HTA trials use systematic reviews to inform the design and planning of a new trial. Systematic reviews play an important role in the development of clinical trials and the implications of this will be discussed.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre (NETSCC), University of Southampton, Southampton, UK

    Sheetal Bhurke, Anna Tallant, Amanda Young & Elaine Williams

  2. Wessex Institute, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK

    Andrew Cook, Amanda Young & James Raftery

  3. University of Southampton and University Hospital Southampton, Southampton, UK

    Andrew Cook & James Raftery

Authors
  1. Sheetal Bhurke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrew Cook
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anna Tallant
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Amanda Young
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Elaine Williams
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. James Raftery
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sheetal Bhurke.

Rights and permissions

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 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.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bhurke, S., Cook, A., Tallant, A. et al. How are systematic reviews used in the planning and design of health technology assessment funded trials?. Trials 16, O3 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-16-S2-O3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Public Health
  • Clinical Trial
  • Systematic Review
  • Data Extraction
  • Limited Evidence

Trials

ISSN: 1745-6215