Search

Background: Subfertility is a common problem for which in vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatment is commonly recommended. Success rates following IVF are suboptimal and have remained static over the last few years. This imposes a considerable financial burden on overstretched healthcare resources. Time-lapse imaging (TLI) of developing embryos in IVF treatment is hypothesised to improve the success rates of treatment. This may be either by providing undisturbed culture conditions or by improving the predictive accuracy for optimal embryo selection from a cohort of available embryos. However, the current best evidence for its effectiveness is inconclusive.Methods: The time-lapse imaging trial is a pragmatic, multi-centre, three-arm parallel-group randomised controlled trial using re-randomisation. The primary objective of the trial is to determine if the use of TLI or undisturbed culture in IVF treatment results in a higher live birth rate when compared to current standard methods of embryo incubation and assessment. Secondary outcomes include measures of clinical efficacy and safety. The trial will randomise 1575 participants to detect an increase in live birth from 26.5 to 35.25%.Discussion: In the absence of high-quality evidence, there is no current national guidance, recommendation or policy for the use of TLI. The use of TLI is not consistently incorporated into standard IVF care. A large, pragmatic, multi-centre, trial will provide much needed definitive evidence regarding the effectiveness of TLI. If proven to be effective, its incorporation into standard care would translate into significant clinical and economic benefits. If not, it would allow allocation of resources to more effective interventions.Trial Registration: ISRCTN registry ISRCTN17792989 . Prospectively registered on 18 April 2018. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Data collection consumes a large proportion of clinical trial resources. Each data item requires time and effort for collection, processing and quality control procedures. In general, more data equals a heavier burden for trial staff and participants. It is also likely to increase costs. Knowing the types of data being collected, and in what proportion, will be helpful to ensure that limited trial resources and participant goodwill are used wisely.Aim: The aim of this study is to categorise the types of data collected across a broad range of trials and assess what proportion of collected data each category represents.Methods: We developed a standard operating procedure to categorise data into primary outcome, secondary outcome and 15 other categories. We categorised all variables collected on trial data collection forms from 18, mainly publicly funded, randomised superiority trials, including trials of an investigational medicinal product and complex interventions. Categorisation was done independently in pairs: one person having in-depth knowledge of the trial, the other independent of the trial. Disagreement was resolved through reference to the trial protocol and discussion, with the project team being consulted if necessary.Key Results: Primary outcome data accounted for 5.0% (median)/11.2% (mean) of all data items collected. Secondary outcomes accounted for 39.9% (median)/42.5% (mean) of all data items. Non-outcome data such as participant identifiers and demographic data represented 32.4% (median)/36.5% (mean) of all data items collected.Conclusion: A small proportion of the data collected in our sample of 18 trials was related to the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes accounted for eight times the volume of data as the primary outcome. A substantial amount of data collection is not related to trial outcomes. Trialists should work to make sure that the data they collect are only those essential to support the health and treatment decisions of those whom the trial is designed to inform. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: One of the top three research priorities for the UK clinical trial community is to address the gap in evidence-based approaches to improving participant retention in randomised trials. Despite this, there is little evidence supporting methods to improve retention. This paper reports the PRioRiTy II project, a Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) that identified and prioritised unanswered questions and uncertainties around trial retention in collaboration with key stakeholders.Methods: This PSP was conducted in collaboration with the James Lind Alliance, a non-profit making initiative, to support key stakeholders (researchers, patients, and the public) in jointly identifying and agreeing on priority research questions. There were three stages. (1) First an initial online survey was conducted consisting of six open-ended questions about retention in randomised trials. Responses were coded into thematic groups to create a longlist of questions. The longlist of questions was checked against existing evidence to ensure that they had not been answered by existing research. (2) An interim stage involved a further online survey where stakeholders were asked to select questions of key importance from the longlist. (3) A face-to-face consensus meeting was held, where key stakeholder representatives agreed on an ordered list of 21 unanswered research questions for methods of improving retention in randomised trials.Results: A total of 456 respondents yielded 2431 answers to six open-ended questions, from which 372 questions specifically about retention were identified. Further analysis included thematically grouping all data items within answers and merging questions in consultation with the Steering Group. This produced 27 questions for further rating during the interim survey. The top 21 questions from the interim online survey were brought to a face-to-face consensus meeting in which key stakeholder representatives prioritised the order. The 'Top 10' of these are reported in this paper. The number one ranked question was 'What motivates a participant's decision to complete a clinical trial?' The entire list will be available at www.priorityresearch.ie .Conclusion: The Top 10 list can inform the direction of future research on trial methods and be used by funders to guide projects aiming to address and improve retention in randomised trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]