Adaptive designs undertaken in clinical research: a review of registered clinical trials
Open accessAbstract
Adaptive designs have the potential to improve efficiency in the evaluation of new medical treatments in comparison to traditional fixed sample size designs. However, they are still not widely used in practice in clinical research. Little research has been conducted to investigate what adaptive designs are being undertaken. This review highlights the current state of registered adaptive designs and their characteristics. The review looked at phase II, II/III and III trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov from 29 February 2000 to 1 June 2014, supplemented with trials from the National Institute for Health Research register and known adaptive trials. A range of adaptive design search terms were applied to the trials extracted from each database. Characteristics of the adaptive designs were then recorded including funder, therapeutic area and type of adaptation. The results in the paper suggest that the use of adaptive designs has increased. They seem to be most often used in phase II trials and in oncology. In phase III trials, the most popular form of adaptation is the group sequential design. The review failed to capture all trials with adaptive designs, which suggests that the reporting of adaptive designs, such as in clinical trials registers, needs much improving. We recommend that clinical trial registers should contain sections dedicated to the type and scope of the adaptation and that the term 'adaptive design' should be included in the trial title or at least in the brief summary or design sections.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
A traditional approach to investigating an intervention implementation package would include multiple, successive randomized clinical trials, each with specific research questions requiring significant time and financial resources.
“A traditional approach to investigating an intervention implementation package would include multiple, successive randomized clinical trials, each with specific research questions requiring significant time and financial resources [66].”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 38 · Cited by 107
- Authors
- Hatfield, I., Allison, A., Flight, L., Julious, S. A., & Dimairo, M.
- Affiliations
- Newcastle University (GB)
- MRC Biostatistics Unit (GB)
- University of Sheffield (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Dimairo, Munyaradzi
- Venue
- Trials
- Published
- 2016-03-19
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 150-150
- ISSN
- 1745-6215 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4799596
- OpenAlex
- W2301701445
- Cited by
- 107
- References
- 38
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 2
- FWCI
- 1.65
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Trials (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR-RMFI-2013-04-011-101, DRF-2012-05-182)
- University of Sheffield
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pharmaceutical studies and practices
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Keywords
- adaptive design, ClinicalTrials.gov, group sequential designs, cancer clinical trials
- MeSH terms
- Clinical Trials as Topic, Data Collection, Humans, Terminology as Topic, Quality Control, Registries, Research Design
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