Time to publication for NIHR HTA programme-funded research: a cohort study

ObjectiveTo assess the time to publication of primary research and evidence syntheses funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme published as a monograph in Health Technology Assessment and as a journal article in the wider biomedical literature.Study designRetrospective cohort study.SettingPrimary research and evidence synthesis projects funded by the HTA Programme were included in the cohort if they were registered in the NIHR research programmes database and was planned to submit the draft final report for publication in Health Technology Assessment on or before 9 December 2011.Main outcome measuresThe median time to publication and publication at 30?months in Health Technology Assessment and in an external journal were determined by searching the NIHR research programmes database and HTA Programme website.ResultsOf 458 included projects, 184 (40.2%) were primary research projects and 274 (59.8%) were evidence syntheses. A total of 155 primary research projects had a completion date; the median time to publication was 23?months (26.5 and 35.5?months to publish a monograph and to publish in an external journal, respectively) and 69% were published within 30?months. The median time to publication of HTA-funded trials (n=126) was 24?months and 67.5% were published within 30?months. Among the evidence syntheses with a protocol online date (n=223), the median time to publication was 25.5?months (28?months to publication as a monograph), but only 44.4% of evidence synthesis projects were published in an external journal. 65% of evidence synthesis studies had been published within 30.0?months.ConclusionsResearch funded by the HTA Programme publishes promptly. The importance of Health Technology Assessment was highlighted as the median time to publication was 9?months shorter for a monograph than an external journal article

The clinical relevance and newsworthiness of NIHR HTA-funded research: a cohort study

ObjectiveTo assess the clinical relevance and newsworthiness of the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme funded reports.Study designRetrospective cohort study.SettingThe cohort included 311 NIHR HTA Programme funded reports publishing in HTA in the period 1 January 2007–31 December 2012. The McMaster Online Rating of Evidence (MORE) system independently identified the clinical relevance and newsworthiness of NIHR HTA publications and non-NIHR HTA publications. The MORE system involves over 4000 physicians rating publications on a scale of relevance (the extent to which articles are relevant to practice) and a scale of newsworthiness (the extent to which articles contain news or something clinicians are unlikely to know).Main outcome measuresThe proportion of reports published in HTA meeting MORE inclusion criteria and mean average relevance and newsworthiness ratings were calculated and compared with publications from the same studies publishing outside HTA and non-NIHR HTA funded publications.Results286/311 (92.0%) of NIHR HTA reports were assessed by MORE, of which 192 (67.1%) passed MORE criteria. The average clinical relevance rating for NIHR HTA reports was 5.48, statistically higher than the 5.32 rating for non-NIHR HTA publications (mean difference=0.16, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.29, p=0.01). Average newsworthiness ratings were similar between NIHR HTA reports and non-NIHR HTA publications (4.75 and 4.70, respectively; mean difference=0.05, 95% CI ?0.18 to 0.07, p=0.402). NIHR HTA-funded original research reports were statistically higher for newsworthiness than reviews (5.05 compared with 4.64) (mean difference=0.41, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.64, p=0.001).ConclusionsFunding research of clinical relevance is important in maximising the value of research investment. The NIHR HTA Programme is successful in funding projects that generate outputs of clinical relevance

Clinical trial metadata:Defining and extracting metadata on the design, conduct, results and costs of 125 randomised clinical trials funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme

Background:  By 2011, the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme had published the results of over 100 trials with another 220 in progress. The aim of the project was to develop and pilot ‘metadata’ on clinical trials funded by the HTA programme.   Objectives: The aim of the project was to develop and pilot questions describing clinical trials funded by the HTA programme in terms of it meeting the needs of the NHS with scientifically robust studies. The objectives were to develop relevant classification systems and definitions for use in answering relevant questions and to assess their utility.   Data sources: Published monographs and internal HTA documents.   Review methods: A database was developed, ‘populated’ using retrospective data and used to answer questions under six prespecified themes. Questions were screened for feasibility in terms of data availability and/or ease of extraction. Answers were assessed by the authors in terms of completeness, success of the classification system used and resources required. Each question was scored to be retained, amended or dropped.    Results: One hundred and twenty-five randomised trials were included in the database from 109 monographs. Neither the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number nor the term ‘randomised trial’ in the title proved a reliable way of identifying randomised trials. Only limited data were available on how the trials aimed to meet the needs of the NHS. Most trials were shown to follow their protocols but updates were often necessary as hardly any trials recruited as planned. Details were often lacking on planned statistical analyses, but we did not have access to the relevant statistical plans. Almost all the trials reported on cost-effectiveness, often in terms of both the primary outcome and quality-adjusted life-years. The cost of trials was shown to depend on the number of centres and the duration of the trial. Of the 78 questions explored, 61 were well answered, 33 fully with 28 requiring amendment were the analysis updated. The other 17 could not be answered with readily available data.   Limitations: The study was limited by being confined to 125 randomised trials by one funder.   Conclusions: Metadata on randomised controlled trials can be expanded to include aspects of design, performance, results and costs. The HTA programme should continue and extend the work reported here

The impact generated by public and charity-funded research in the UK: A systematic literature review

Objective: To identify, synthesize and critically assess the empirical evidence of the impact generated by public and charity funded health research in the United Kingdom. Methods: We conducted a systematic literature review of the empirical evidence published in English in peer-reviewed journals between 2006 and 2017. Studies meeting the inclusion criteria were selected and their findings were analysed using the Payback Framework into five main categories: knowledge, benefits to future research and research use, benefits from informing policy and product development, health and health sector benefits and broader economic benefits. We assessed the studies for risk of selection, reporting and funding bias. Results: Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria. The majority of the studies (10 out of 13) assessed impact at multiple domains including the main 5 key themes of the Payback Framework. All of them showed a positive impact of funded research on outcomes. Of those studies, one presented low risk of bias (8%), 6 studies were classified as presenting moderate risk of bias (46%) and 6 studies presented high risk of bias (46%). Conclusions: Empirical evidence on the impact of public and charity funded research is still limited and subject to funding and selection bias. More work is needed to establish the causal effects of funded research on academic outcomes, policy, practice and the broader economy

The completeness of intervention descriptions in published National Institute of Health Research HTA-funded trials: a cross-sectional study

ObjectivesThe objective of this study was to assess whether National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA)-funded randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in the HTA journal were described in sufficient detail to replicate in practice.SettingRCTs published in the HTA journal.Participants98 RCTs published in the HTA journal up to March 2011. Completeness of the intervention description was assessed independently by two researchers using a checklist, which included assessments of participants, intensity, schedule, materials and settings. Disagreements in scoring were discussed in the team; differences were then explored and resolved.Primary and secondary outcome measuresProportion of trials rated as having a complete description of the intervention (primary outcome measure). The proportion of drug trials versus psychological and non-drug trials rated as having a complete description of the intervention (secondary outcome measures).ResultsComponents of the intervention description were missing in 68/98 (69.4%) reports. Baseline characteristics and descriptions of settings had the highest levels of completeness with over 90% of reports complete. Reports were less complete on patient information with 58.2% of the journals having an adequate description. When looking at individual intervention types, drug intervention descriptions were more complete than non-drug interventions with 33.3% and 30.6% levels of completeness, respectively, although this was not significant statistically. Only 27.3% of RCTs with psychological interventions were deemed to be complete, although again these differences were not significant statistically.ConclusionsEnsuring the replicability of study interventions is an essential part of adding value in research. All those publishing clinical trial data need to ensure transparency and completeness in the reporting of interventions to ensure that study interventions can be replicated

Case study : a patient-clinician collaboration that identified and prioritized evidence gaps and stimulated research development

Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.Peer reviewedPostprin

Comparing open and minimally invasive surgical procedures for oesophagectomy in the treatment of cancer: the ROMIO (Randomised Oesophagectomy: Minimally Invasive or Open) feasibility study and pilot trial

Localised oesophageal cancer can be curatively treated with surgery (oesophagectomy) but the procedure is complex with a risk of complications, negative effects on quality of life and a recovery period of 6-9 months. Minimal-access surgery may accelerate recovery.The ROMIO (Randomised Oesophagectomy: Minimally Invasive or Open) study aimed to establish the feasibility of, and methodology for, a definitive trial comparing minimally invasive and open surgery for oesophagectomy. Objectives were to quantify the number of eligible patients in a pilot trial; develop surgical manuals as the basis for quality assurance; standardise pathological processing; establish a method to blind patients to their allocation in the first week post surgery; identify measures of postsurgical outcome of importance to patients and clinicians; and establish the main cost differences between the surgical approaches.Pilot parallel three-arm randomised controlled trial nested within feasibility work.Two UK NHS departments of upper gastrointestinal surgery.Patients aged ≥ 18 years with histopathological evidence of oesophageal or oesophagogastric junctional adenocarcinoma, squamous cell cancer or high-grade dysplasia, referred for oesophagectomy or oesophagectomy following neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy.Oesophagectomy, with patients randomised to open surgery, a hybrid open chest and minimally invasive abdomen or totally minimally invasive access.The primary outcome measure for the pilot trial was the number of patients recruited per month, with the main trial considered feasible if at least 2.5 patients per month were recruited.During 21 months of recruitment, 263 patients were assessed for eligibility; of these, 135 (51%) were found to be eligible and 104 (77%) agreed to participate, an average of five patients per month. In total, 41 patients were allocated to open surgery, 43 to the hybrid procedure and 20 to totally minimally invasive surgery. Recruitment is continuing, allowing a seamless transition into the definitive trial. Consequently, the database is unlocked at the time of writing and data presented here are for patients recruited by 31 August 2014. Random allocation achieved a good balance between the arms of the study, which, as a high proportion of patients underwent their allocated surgery (69/79, 87%), ensured a fair comparison between the interventions. Dressing patients with large bandages, covering all possible incisions, was successful in keeping patients blind while pain was assessed during the first week post surgery. Postsurgical length of stay and risk of adverse events were within the typical range for this group of patients, with one death occurring within 30 days among 76 patients. There were good completion rates for the assessment of pain at 6 days post surgery (88%) and of the patient-reported outcomes at 6 weeks post randomisation (74%).Rapid recruitment to the pilot trial and the successful refinement of methodology indicated the feasibility of a definitive trial comparing different approaches to oesophagectomy. Although we have shown a full trial of open compared with minimally invasive oesophagectomy to be feasible, this is necessarily based on our findings from the two clinical centres that we could include in this small preliminary study.Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN59036820.This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 48. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Continuous low-dose antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent urinary tract infection in adults who perform clean intermittent self-catheterisation: the AnTIC RCT

Peer reviewedPublisher PD