Cited by 89Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsHealth Policy Implementation Science

Acceptance checklist for clinical effectiveness pilot trials: a systematic approach

Open access
Charlesworth, Georgina, Burnell, Karen, Hoe, Juanita, Orrell, Martin, Russell, Ian·2013·BMC Medical Research Methodology

Abstract

Conducting a pilot trial is important in preparing for, and justifying investment in, the ensuing larger trial. Pilot trials using the same design and methods as the subsequent main trial are ethically and financially advantageous especially when pilot and main trial data can be pooled. For explanatory trials in which internal validity is paramount, there is little room for variation of methods between the pilot and main trial. For pragmatic trials, where generalisability or external validity is key, greater flexibility is written into trial protocols to allow for 'real life' variation in procedures. We describe the development of a checklist for use in decision-making on whether pilot data can be carried forward to the main trial dataset without compromising trial integrity. We illustrate the use of the checklist using a pragmatic trial of psychosocial interventions for family carers of people with dementia as a case study.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1471-2288-13-78

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Charlesworth, G., Burnell, K., Hoe, J., Orrell, M., & Russell, I.
Affiliations
  • North East London NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • University of Portsmouth (GB)
  • University College London (GB)
  • Swansea University (GB)
Corresponding author
Charlesworth, Georgina
Venue
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Published
2013-06-13
Volume
13
Issue
1
Pages
78-78
ISSN
1471-2288 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1991663299
Cited by
87
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3
FWCI
4.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Medical Research Methodology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • City Research Online (City University London) (acceptedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (RP-PG-0606-1083, ISRCTN37956201)
  • Programme Grants for Applied Research
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
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
Keywords
pilot trial, data pooling, trial integrity, pragmatic trials, explanatory trials, trial protocol design, psychosocial interventions, family caregivers, dementia, generalizability
MeSH terms
Clinical Trials as Topic, Decision Making, Dementia, Humans, Pilot Projects, Research Design, Reproducibility of Results, Caregivers, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Organizational Case Studies, Biomedical Research, Checklist

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