Cited by 22Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in Epidemiology

Pilot Studies in clinical research

Open access
Julious, Steven A·2016·Statistical Methods in Medical Research

Abstract

Pilot studies are small‐scale studies conducted to gather information and provide a foundation for the design of a definitive trial. They do not seek to estimate treatment efficacy or effectiveness themselves but may be used to assess whether a definitive trial is feasible and how it can be carried out. The objectives of a study can be met only if a sufficient number of participants are recruited. A formal power calculation is not usually necessary for a pilot study where the focus is on estimation – for example, of feasibility parameters or the population variance – and the precision of these estimates. However, the sample size should still be justified as appropriate to meet the aims of the trial. The appropriate analysis of a pilot study would usually be a descriptive summary of the parameters of interest, addressing the original trial objectives. The analysis should not contain hypothesis testing for which the trial is not powered. The interpretation of the results should be in line with the feasibility of the planned main trial. The decision‐making process and changes made to the trial design based on the pilot study should be documented, and results presented in accordance with the CONSORT extension for pilot trials. Every effort should be made to publish the trial for transparency and to allow learning to be shared within the research community.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0962280216651022

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. Arain M, Campbell MJ, Cooper CL, et al. What is a pilot or feasibility study? A review of current practice and editorial policy. BMC Med Res Methodol 2010; 10: 67.
  2. Wilson DT, Walwyn REA, Brown J, Farrin AJ and Brown SR. Statistical challenges in assessing potential efficacy of complex interventions in pilot or feasibility studies. Statistical Methods in Medical Research 2015 doi: 10.1177/0962280215589507 · DOI
  3. Brown SR, Gregory WM, Twelves CI, et al. Designing phase II trials in cancer: A systematic review and guidance. Br J Cancer 2011; 105: 194-199.
  4. Jaki T. Uptake of novel statistical methods for early-phase clinical studies in the UK public sector. Clin Trials 2013;10: 344-346
  5. Wason JMS and Jaki T. A review of statistical designs for improving the efficiency of phase II studies in oncology . Statistical Methods in Medical Research 2015 doi: 10.1177/0962280215588247 · DOI
  6. Hee SW, Hamborg T, Day D, Madan J, Miller F, Posch M, Zohar S and Stallard N. Decision- theoretic designs for small trials and pilot studies: A review. Statistical Methods in Medical Research 2015 doi: 10.1177/0962280215588245 · DOI
  7. Stallard N. Decision-theoretic designs for phase II clinical trials allowing for competing studies. Biometrics 2003; 59: 402-409.
  8. Stallard N, Thall PF and Whitehead J. Decision theoretic designs for phase II clinical trials with multiple outcomes. Biometrics 1999; 55: 971-977.
  9. Eldridge S and Kerry S. A practical guide to cluster randomised trials in health services research. Sussex, UK: Wiley, 2012.
  10. Eldridge SM, Ashby D, Feder GS, et al. Lessons for cluster randomized trials in the twenty- first century: a systematic review of trials in primary care. Clin Trials 2004; 1: 80-90

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Julious, S. A.
Affiliations
University of Sheffield (GB)
Corresponding author
Julious, Steven A
Venue
Statistical Methods in Medical Research
Published
2016-05-19
Volume
25
Issue
3
Pages
995-996
ISSN
  • 0962-2802 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-0334
OpenAlex
W2406268154
Cited by
22
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2017: 1
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Statistical Methods in Medical Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
Keywords
pilot study, trial feasibility, sample size justification, trial design, participant recruitment, hypothesis testing, research transparency
MeSH terms
Humans, Pilot Projects, Research Design, Statistics as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Sample Size, Biomedical Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review