SORA

Advancing, promoting and sharing knowledge of health through excellence in teaching, clinical practice and research into the prevention and treatment of illness

Post-trial follow-up methodology in large randomised controlled trials: a systematic review.

Llewellyn-Bennett, R; Edwards, D; Roberts, N; Hainsworth, AH; Bulbulia, R; Bowman, L (2018) Post-trial follow-up methodology in large randomised controlled trials: a systematic review. Trials, 19 (1). p. 298. ISSN 1745-6215 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-018-2653-0
SGUL Authors: Hainsworth, Atticus Henry

[img]
Preview
PDF Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.

Download (1MB) | Preview

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Randomised controlled clinical trials typically have a relatively brief in-trial follow-up period which can underestimate safety signals and fail to detect long-term hazards, which may take years to appear. Extended follow-up after the scheduled closure of the trial allows detection of both persistent or enhanced beneficial effects following cessation of study treatment (i.e. a legacy effect) and the emergence of possible adverse effects (e.g. development of cancer). METHODS: A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines to qualitatively compare post-trial follow-up methods used in large randomised controlled trials. Five bibliographic databases, including Medline and the Cochrane Library, and one trial registry were searched. All large randomised controlled trials (more than 1000 adult participants) published from March 2006 to April 2017 were evaluated. Two reviewers screened and extracted data attaining > 95% concordance of papers checked. Assessment of bias in the trials was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. RESULTS: Fifty-seven thousand three hundred and fifty-two papers were identified and 65 trials which had post-trial follow-up (PTFU) were included in the analysis. The majority of trials used more than one type of follow-up. There was no evidence of an association between the retention rates of participants in the PTFU period and the type of follow-up used. Costs of PTFU varied widely with data linkage being the most economical. It was not possible to assess associations between risk of bias during the in-trial period and proportions lost to follow-up during the PTFU period. DISCUSSION: Data captured during the post-trial follow-up period can add scientific value to a trial. However, there are logistical and financial barriers to overcome. Where available, data linkage via electronic registries and records is a cost-effective method which can provide data on a range of endpoints. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Not applicable for PROSPERO registration.

Item Type: Article
Additional Information: © The Author(s). 2018 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. 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.
Keywords: Cost, Effective, Follow-up, Long-term, Methodology, Post-trial, Randomised controlled trial, Retention, General & Internal Medicine, 1102 Cardiovascular Medicine And Haematology, 1103 Clinical Sciences
SGUL Research Institute / Research Centre: Academic Structure > Molecular and Clinical Sciences Research Institute (MCS)
Journal or Publication Title: Trials
ISSN: 1745-6215
Language: eng
Dates:
DateEvent
30 May 2018Published
13 April 2018Accepted
Publisher License: Creative Commons: Attribution 4.0
Projects:
Project IDFunderFunder ID
Research FellowshipRoyal College of Surgeons of Englandhttp://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000297
PubMed ID: 29843774
Go to PubMed abstract
URI: https://openaccess.sgul.ac.uk/id/eprint/109880
Publisher's version: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-018-2653-0

Actions (login required)

Edit Item Edit Item