Development of a conceptual framework for defining trial efficiency.

Charis Xuan Xie, Anna De Simoni, Sandra Eldridge, Hilary Pinnock, Clare Relton
Author Information
  1. Charis Xuan Xie: Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, England, United Kingdom. ORCID
  2. Anna De Simoni: Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, England, United Kingdom.
  3. Sandra Eldridge: Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, England, United Kingdom.
  4. Hilary Pinnock: Usher Institute, Asthma UK Centre for Applied Research, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom.
  5. Clare Relton: Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, England, United Kingdom.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Globally, there is a growing focus on efficient trials, yet numerous interpretations have emerged, suggesting a significant heterogeneity in understanding "efficiency" within the trial context. Therefore in this study, we aimed to dissect the multifaceted nature of trial efficiency by establishing a comprehensive conceptual framework for its definition.
OBJECTIVES: To collate diverse perspectives regarding trial efficiency and to achieve consensus on a conceptual framework for defining trial efficiency.
METHODS: From July 2022 to July 2023, we undertook a literature review to identify various terms that have been used to define trial efficiency. We then conducted a modified e-Delphi study, comprising an exploratory open round and a subsequent scoring round to refine and validate the identified items. We recruited a wide range of experts in the global trial community including trialists, funders, sponsors, journal editors and members of the public. Consensus was defined as items rated "without disagreement", measured by the inter-percentile range adjusted for symmetry through the UCLA/RAND approach.
RESULTS: Seventy-eight studies were identified from a literature review, from which we extracted nine terms related to trial efficiency. We then used review findings as exemplars in the Delphi open round. Forty-nine international experts were recruited to the e-Delphi panel. Open round responses resulted in the refinement of the initial nine terms, which were consequently included in the scoring round. We obtained consensus on all nine items: 1) four constructs that collectively define trial efficiency containing scientific efficiency, operational efficiency, statistical efficiency and economic efficiency; and 2) five essential building blocks for efficient trial comprising trial design, trial process, infrastructure, superstructure, and stakeholders.
CONCLUSIONS: This is the first attempt to dissect the concept of trial efficiency into theoretical constructs. Having an agreed definition will allow better trial implementation and facilitate effective communication and decision-making across stakeholders. We also identified essential building blocks that are the cornerstones of an efficient trial. In this pursuit of understanding, we are not only unravelling the complexities of trial efficiency but also laying the groundwork for evaluating the efficiency of an individual trial or a trial system in the future.

References

  1. Stat Med. 1990 Jan-Feb;9(1-2):13-6 [PMID: 2189187]
  2. Anesthesiology. 2020 Jan;132(1):69-81 [PMID: 31809323]
  3. Trials. 2014 Apr 02;15:103 [PMID: 24690215]
  4. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2009 Nov-Dec;16(6):869-73 [PMID: 19717797]
  5. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2020 Apr;32(4):266-275 [PMID: 31685377]
  6. Stat Med. 2013 Apr 15;32(8):1259-75; discussion 1280-2 [PMID: 23081665]
  7. Trials. 2018 Jan 8;19(1):15 [PMID: 29310685]
  8. Contemp Clin Trials. 2012 Nov;33(6):1211-6 [PMID: 22796098]
  9. JMIR Res Protoc. 2021 Feb 1;10(2):e26155 [PMID: 33522978]
  10. Contemp Clin Trials. 2020 Feb;89:105918 [PMID: 31881391]
  11. Palliat Med. 2017 Sep;31(8):684-706 [PMID: 28190381]
  12. Stat Med. 2018 Dec 30;37(30):4652-4664 [PMID: 30209812]
  13. Biometrics. 2020 Dec;76(4):1167-1176 [PMID: 31961447]
  14. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2010 Mar-Apr;24(3):225-34 [PMID: 19959829]
  15. Stat Med. 2019 May 10;38(10):1703-1714 [PMID: 30474289]
  16. J Dent Res. 1977 Oct;56 Spec No:C116-22 [PMID: 344367]
  17. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014 Oct;67(10):1083-92 [PMID: 25063555]
  18. Trials. 2018 Jun 27;19(1):341 [PMID: 29945656]
  19. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2015 Jan;22(1):166-78 [PMID: 25030032]
  20. Clin Trials. 2020 Dec;17(6):617-626 [PMID: 32666831]
  21. JAMA Netw Open. 2022 Mar 1;5(3):e224427 [PMID: 35357459]
  22. Innov Clin Neurosci. 2011 Jul;8(7):26-34 [PMID: 21860843]
  23. J Clin Transl Sci. 2022 Apr 01;6(1):e63 [PMID: 35720964]
  24. AAPS J. 2022 Apr 21;24(3):57 [PMID: 35449371]
  25. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010 Dec 1;102(23):1750-1, 1755 [PMID: 21088280]
  26. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2015 Apr 14;15:28 [PMID: 25881112]
  27. Clin Cardiol. 2001 Nov;24(11 Suppl):V17-23 [PMID: 11712772]
  28. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2021 Sep;87(9):3608-3618 [PMID: 33580584]
  29. Contemp Clin Trials. 2017 Nov;62:114-120 [PMID: 28866294]
  30. Clin Trials. 2020 Oct;17(5):483-490 [PMID: 32666816]
  31. Eur J Cancer. 2022 May;166:270-278 [PMID: 35344852]
  32. Stat Med. 2006 Oct 15;25(19):3231-5; discussion 3313-4, 3326-47 [PMID: 16819752]
  33. Stat Med. 1990 Jan-Feb;9(1-2):145-8; discussion 148-51 [PMID: 2345831]
  34. Heart. 2017 Aug;103(15):1156-1162 [PMID: 28455296]
  35. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2017 Jul;102(4):F291-F298 [PMID: 27630188]
  36. Clin Trials. 2007;4(1):102-5 [PMID: 17327250]
  37. Contemp Clin Trials. 2016 Mar;47:376-82 [PMID: 26968616]
  38. Contemp Clin Trials. 2014 May;38(1):19-27 [PMID: 24607295]
  39. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2012 Jan;22(1):44-52 [PMID: 21636257]
  40. Br J Cancer. 2020 Oct;123(8):1207-1208 [PMID: 32690866]
  41. J Comp Eff Res. 2014 May;3(3):233-6 [PMID: 24969149]
  42. Stat Med. 1990 Jan-Feb;9(1-2):161-70; discussion 170-2 [PMID: 2345832]
  43. Epilepsia Open. 2017 Feb 21;2(2):121-122 [PMID: 29588941]
  44. Respir Med. 2011 Oct;105(10):1501-6 [PMID: 21576012]
  45. Lancet Glob Health. 2021 May;9(5):e681-e690 [PMID: 33865473]
  46. JAMA Netw Open. 2022 Jul 1;5(7):e2221140 [PMID: 35819785]
  47. Contemp Clin Trials. 2020 Feb;89:105890 [PMID: 31740427]
  48. Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2019 Jan;36(1):50-54 [PMID: 29976075]
  49. Can J Cardiol. 2013 Jun;29(6):652-8 [PMID: 23702356]
  50. Contemp Clin Trials. 2021 Jun;105:106397 [PMID: 33845209]
  51. Eur J Heart Fail. 2016 May;18(5):482-9 [PMID: 27071916]
  52. Carcinogenesis. 2018 Jan 12;39(1):21-25 [PMID: 28968787]
  53. Am Heart J. 2013 Sep;166(3):421-8 [PMID: 24016489]
  54. BMJ Open. 2020 May 21;10(5):e036829 [PMID: 32444433]
  55. Int J Biostat. 2021 Dec 22;18(2):329-356 [PMID: 34957728]
  56. Stat Med. 2017 May 10;36(10):1568-1579 [PMID: 28098411]
  57. Heart. 2018 Oct;104(19):1562-1567 [PMID: 29666176]
  58. Stat Methods Med Res. 2022 Jul;31(7):1207-1223 [PMID: 35404188]
  59. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2017 Aug;14(8):493-501 [PMID: 28447664]
  60. Clin Trials. 2012 Oct;9(5):578-87 [PMID: 23060319]
  61. JAMA. 2015 Apr 28;313(16):1619-20 [PMID: 25799162]
  62. ACR Open Rheumatol. 2021 Sep;3(9):593-600 [PMID: 34296815]
  63. J Health Serv Res Policy. 1997 Apr;2(2):81-5 [PMID: 10180369]
  64. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2020 Mar 1;112(3):229-237 [PMID: 31504680]
  65. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018 Jun;98:80-88 [PMID: 29486281]
  66. Clin Trials. 2016 Feb;13(1):22-30 [PMID: 26768569]

MeSH Term

Humans
Delphi Technique
Clinical Trials as Topic
Research Design
Consensus

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0trialefficiencyroundefficientconceptualframeworkreviewtermsidentifiednineunderstandingstudydissectdefinitionconsensusdefiningJulyliteratureuseddefinee-DelphicomprisingopenscoringitemsrecruitedrangeexpertsconstructsessentialbuildingblocksstakeholdersalsoBACKGROUND:Globallygrowingfocustrialsyetnumerousinterpretationsemergedsuggestingsignificantheterogeneity"efficiency"withincontextThereforeaimedmultifacetednatureestablishingcomprehensiveOBJECTIVES:collatediverseperspectivesregardingachieveMETHODS:20222023undertookidentifyvariousconductedmodifiedexploratorysubsequentrefinevalidatewideglobalcommunityincludingtrialistsfunderssponsorsjournaleditorsmemberspublicConsensusdefinedrated"withoutdisagreement"measuredinter-percentileadjustedsymmetryUCLA/RANDapproachRESULTS:Seventy-eightstudiesextractedrelatedfindingsexemplarsDelphiForty-nineinternationalpanelOpenresponsesresultedrefinementinitialconsequentlyincludedobtaineditems:1fourcollectivelycontainingscientificoperationalstatisticaleconomic2fivedesignprocessinfrastructuresuperstructureCONCLUSIONS:firstattemptconcepttheoreticalagreedwillallowbetterimplementationfacilitateeffectivecommunicationdecision-makingacrosscornerstonespursuitunravellingcomplexitieslayinggroundworkevaluatingindividualsystemfutureDevelopment

Similar Articles

Cited By