Are some feasibility studies more feasible than others? A review of the outcomes of feasibility studies on the ISRCTN registry

Abstract Background Feasibility studies are often conducted before committing to a randomised controlled trial (RCT), yet there is little published evidence to inform how useful feasibility studies are, especially in terms of adding or reducing waste in research. This study attempted to examine how...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Ben Morgan, Jennie Hejdenberg, Kasia Kuleszewicz, David Armstrong, Sue Ziebland
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	BMC 2021
Materias:	Feasibility studies Research waste Progression rates Medicine (General) R5-920
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/7598f4526fbf46018f9da4a8c6738ba1
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:7598f4526fbf46018f9da4a8c6738ba1
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:7598f4526fbf46018f9da4a8c6738ba12021-11-14T12:12:45ZAre some feasibility studies more feasible than others? A review of the outcomes of feasibility studies on the ISRCTN registry10.1186/s40814-021-00931-y2055-5784https://doaj.org/article/7598f4526fbf46018f9da4a8c6738ba12021-11-01T00:00:00Zhttps://doi.org/10.1186/s40814-021-00931-yhttps://doaj.org/toc/2055-5784Abstract Background Feasibility studies are often conducted before committing to a randomised controlled trial (RCT), yet there is little published evidence to inform how useful feasibility studies are, especially in terms of adding or reducing waste in research. This study attempted to examine how many feasibility studies demonstrated that the full trial was feasible and whether some feasibility studies were inherently likely to be feasible or not feasible, based on the topic area and/or research setting. Methods Keyword searches were conducted on the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number (ISRCTN) registry to identify all completed feasibility studies which had been conducted in the UK. Results A total of 625 records from the 1933 identified were reviewed before it became evident that it would be futile to continue. Of 329 feasibility studies identified, 160 had a known outcome (49%), 133 (83%) trials were deemed to be feasible and only 27 (17%) were reported to be non-feasible. There were therefore too few studies to allow the intended comparison of differences in non-feasible studies by topic and/or setting. Conclusions There were too few studies reported as non-feasible to draw any useful conclusions on whether topic and/or setting had an effect. However, the high feasibility rate (83%) may suggest that non-feasible studies are subject to publication bias or that many feasible studies are redundant and may be adding waste to the research pathway.Ben MorganJennie HejdenbergKasia KuleszewiczDavid ArmstrongSue ZieblandBMCarticleFeasibility studiesResearch wasteProgression ratesMedicine (General)R5-920ENPilot and Feasibility Studies, Vol 7, Iss 1, Pp 1-8 (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Feasibility studies Research waste Progression rates Medicine (General) R5-920
spellingShingle	Feasibility studies Research waste Progression rates Medicine (General) R5-920 Ben Morgan Jennie Hejdenberg Kasia Kuleszewicz David Armstrong Sue Ziebland Are some feasibility studies more feasible than others? A review of the outcomes of feasibility studies on the ISRCTN registry
description	Abstract Background Feasibility studies are often conducted before committing to a randomised controlled trial (RCT), yet there is little published evidence to inform how useful feasibility studies are, especially in terms of adding or reducing waste in research. This study attempted to examine how many feasibility studies demonstrated that the full trial was feasible and whether some feasibility studies were inherently likely to be feasible or not feasible, based on the topic area and/or research setting. Methods Keyword searches were conducted on the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number (ISRCTN) registry to identify all completed feasibility studies which had been conducted in the UK. Results A total of 625 records from the 1933 identified were reviewed before it became evident that it would be futile to continue. Of 329 feasibility studies identified, 160 had a known outcome (49%), 133 (83%) trials were deemed to be feasible and only 27 (17%) were reported to be non-feasible. There were therefore too few studies to allow the intended comparison of differences in non-feasible studies by topic and/or setting. Conclusions There were too few studies reported as non-feasible to draw any useful conclusions on whether topic and/or setting had an effect. However, the high feasibility rate (83%) may suggest that non-feasible studies are subject to publication bias or that many feasible studies are redundant and may be adding waste to the research pathway.
format	article
author	Ben Morgan Jennie Hejdenberg Kasia Kuleszewicz David Armstrong Sue Ziebland
author_facet	Ben Morgan Jennie Hejdenberg Kasia Kuleszewicz David Armstrong Sue Ziebland
author_sort	Ben Morgan
title	Are some feasibility studies more feasible than others? A review of the outcomes of feasibility studies on the ISRCTN registry
title_short	Are some feasibility studies more feasible than others? A review of the outcomes of feasibility studies on the ISRCTN registry
title_full	Are some feasibility studies more feasible than others? A review of the outcomes of feasibility studies on the ISRCTN registry
title_fullStr	Are some feasibility studies more feasible than others? A review of the outcomes of feasibility studies on the ISRCTN registry
title_full_unstemmed	Are some feasibility studies more feasible than others? A review of the outcomes of feasibility studies on the ISRCTN registry
title_sort	are some feasibility studies more feasible than others? a review of the outcomes of feasibility studies on the isrctn registry
publisher	BMC
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/7598f4526fbf46018f9da4a8c6738ba1
work_keys_str_mv	AT benmorgan aresomefeasibilitystudiesmorefeasiblethanothersareviewoftheoutcomesoffeasibilitystudiesontheisrctnregistry AT jenniehejdenberg aresomefeasibilitystudiesmorefeasiblethanothersareviewoftheoutcomesoffeasibilitystudiesontheisrctnregistry AT kasiakuleszewicz aresomefeasibilitystudiesmorefeasiblethanothersareviewoftheoutcomesoffeasibilitystudiesontheisrctnregistry AT davidarmstrong aresomefeasibilitystudiesmorefeasiblethanothersareviewoftheoutcomesoffeasibilitystudiesontheisrctnregistry AT sueziebland aresomefeasibilitystudiesmorefeasiblethanothersareviewoftheoutcomesoffeasibilitystudiesontheisrctnregistry
_version_	1718429354027909120

Are some feasibility studies more feasible than others? A review of the outcomes of feasibility studies on the ISRCTN registry

Ejemplares similares