Methods and processes for development of a CONSORT extension for reporting pilot randomized controlled trials
Open accessAbstract
Feasibility and pilot studies are essential components of planning or preparing for a larger randomized controlled trial (RCT). They are intended to provide useful information about the feasibility of the main RCT—with the goal of reducing uncertainty and thereby increasing the chance of successfully conducting the main RCT. However, research has shown that there are serious inadequacies in the reporting of pilot and feasibility studies. Reasons for this include a lack of explicit publication policies for pilot and feasibility studies in many journals, unclear definitions of what constitutes a pilot or feasibility RCT/study, and a lack of clarity in the objectives and methodological focus. All these suggest that there is an urgent need for new guidelines for reporting pilot and feasibility studies. The aim of this paper is to describe the methods and processes in our development of an extension to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement for reporting pilot and feasibility RCTs, that are executed in preparation for a future, more definitive RCT. There were five overlapping parts to the project: (i) the project launch —which involved establishing a working group and conducting a review of the literature; (ii) stakeholder engagement —which entailed consultation with the CONSORT group, journal editors and publishers, the clinical trials community, and funders; (iii) a Delphi process —used to assess the agreement of experts on initial definitions and to generate a reporting checklist for pilot RCTs, based on the 2010 CONSORT statement extension applicable to reporting pilot studies; (iv) a consensus meeting —to discuss, add, remove, or modify checklist items, with input from experts in the field; and (v) write-up and implementation— which included a guideline document which gives an explanation and elaboration (E&E) and which will provide advice for each item, together with examples of good reporting practice. This final part also included a plan for dissemination and publication of the guideline. We anticipate that implementation of our guideline will improve the reporting completeness, transparency, and quality of pilot RCTs, and hence benefit several constituencies, including authors of journal manuscripts, funding agencies, educators, researchers, and end-users.
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?
The pilot randomized controlled trial was designed and will be reported in accordance with CONSORT guidelines.
“The study involves a pilot randomized controlled trial, which was designed and will be reported in accordance with CONSORT guidelines [44].”
From Improving symptom management for survivors of young adult cancer: rationale and study protocol for a pilot randomized controlled trial (2024) · cites this paper as [44]
The Background and Discussion describe a CONSORT extension for reporting pilot randomized controlled trials, supporting its use as a reporting reference. They do not present CONSORT as guidance for designing the citing authors’ trial, nor establish that the trial followed it. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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 33 · Cited by 216
- Authors
- Thabane, L., Hopewell, S., Lancaster, G. A., Bond, C. M., Coleman, C. L., Campbell, M. J., & Eldridge, S. M.
- Affiliations
- McMaster University (CA)
- University of Oxford (GB)
- Lancaster University (GB)
- University of Aberdeen (GB)
- Queen Mary University of London (GB)
- University of Sheffield (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Thabane, Lehana
- ORCID
- Venue
- Pilot and Feasibility Studies
- Published
- 2016-05-20
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 25-25
- ISSN
- 2055-5784 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC5153862
- OpenAlex
- W2404436473
- Cited by
- 216
- References
- 33
- Citations by year
- 2026: 16 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 40 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 3
- FWCI
- 10.86
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Update notices
- correction (2016-07-19)
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Pilot and Feasibility Studies (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)
- Aberdeen University Research Archive (Aberdeen University) (submittedVersion)
- Keele Research Repository (Keele University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Queen Mary Research Online (Queen Mary University of London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR-RMFI-2013-04-012-101)
- University of Stirling
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
- Keywords
- CONSORT extension, feasibility study, reporting guidelines, reporting checklist, stakeholder engagement, Delphi method, consensus conference, reporting completeness, transparency, CONSORT statement
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