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

Health Technology Assessment

Volumn 19, Issue 11, 2015, Pages 1-166

  Raftery, James ^a   Young, Amanda ^a   Stanton, Louise ^b   Milne, Ruairidh ^a   Cook, Andrew ^a   Turner, David ^a,c   Davidson, Peter ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL RESEARCH; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DATA ANALYSIS; DATA BASE; DATA EXTRACTION; DATA PROCESSING; FEASIBILITY STUDY; FUNDING; HUMAN; METADATA; METHODOLOGY; NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; QUALITY CONTROL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REGISTER; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; FACTUAL DATABASE; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; MEASUREMENT ACCURACY; META ANALYSIS; PILOT STUDY; PROCEDURES; STANDARDS; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; UNITED KINGDOM;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DATA ACCURACY; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; DATABASES, FACTUAL; FINANCING, GOVERNMENT; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PILOT PROJECTS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RESEARCH SUPPORT AS TOPIC; STATE MEDICINE; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 84922781597     PISSN: 13665278     EISSN: 20464924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3310/hta19110     Document Type: Article

References (132)

1. Raftery J, Powell J. Health Technology Assessment in the UK. Lancet 2013;382:1278–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61724-9
2. Campbell MK, Snowdon C, Francis D, Elbourne D, McDonald AM, Knight R, et al. Recruitment to randomised trials: strategies for trial enrolment and participation study. The STEPS study. Health Technol Assess 2007;11(48). http://dx.doi.org/10.3310/hta11480
3. Hanney S, Buxton M, Green C, Coulson D, Raftery J. An assessment of the impact of the NHS Health Technology Assessment Programme. Health Technol Assess 2007;11(53). http://dx.doi.org/10.3310/hta11530
4. Buxton M, Hanney S. How can payback from health services research be assessed? J Health Serv Res Policy 1996;1:35–43.
5. Dent L, Raftery J. Treatment success in pragmatic randomised controlled trials: a review of trials funded by the UK Health Technology Assessment programme. Trials 2011;12:109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-12-109
6. Djulbegovic B, Kumar A, Soares HP, Hozo I, Bepler G, Clarke M, et al. Treatment success in cancer: new cancer treatment successes identified in phase 3 randomized controlled trials conducted by the National Cancer Institute-sponsored cooperative oncology groups, 1955 to 2006. Arch Intern Med 2008;168:632–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archinte.168.6.632
7. Jolly K, Taylor R, Lip G, Greenfield S, Raftery J, Mant J, et al. The Birmingham Rehabilitation Uptake Maximisation Study (BRUM). Home-based compared with hospital-based cardiac rehabilitation in a multi-ethnic population: cost effectiveness and patient adherence. Health Technol Assess 2007;11(35). http://dx.doi.org/10.3310/hta11350
8. Ridyard C, Hughes D. Methods for the collection of resource use data within clinical trials: a systematic review of studies funded by the UK Health Technology Assessment Program. Value Health 2010;13:867–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2010.00788.x
9. Chase D, Milne R, Stein K, Stevens A. What are the relative merits of the sources used to identify potential research priorities for the NHSHTA programme? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2000;16:743–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0266462300102028
10. Chan A, Hrobjartsson A, Haahr M, Gotzsche P, Altman D. Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA 2004;291:2457–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.291.20.2457
11. Chan AW, Altman DG. Identifying outcome reporting bias in randomised trials on PubMed: review of publications and survey of authors. BMJ 2005;330:753. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38356.424606.8F
12. Drummond MF, Jefferson TO. Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. The BMJ Economic Evaluation Working Party. BMJ 1996;313:275–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.313.7052.275
13. Department of Health. Attributing Revenue Costs of Externally-Funded Non-Commercial Research in the NHS (ARCO). London: Department of Health; 2005.
14. Viergever RF, Ghersi D. The quality of registration of clinical trials. PLOS ONE 2011;6:e14701. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0014701
15. ClinicalTrials.gov. FDAAA 801 Requirements. URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/manage-recs/fdaaa (accessed 29 October 2014).
16. World Medical Association. Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. 2008. URL: www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/17c.pdf (accessed 29 October 2014).
17. World Health Organization. International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). URL: www.who.int/ictrp/en/ (accessed 29 October 2014).
18. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). ICMJE Recommendations (‘The Uniform Requirements‘). 2004. URL: www.icmje.org/about-icmje/faqs/icmje-recommendations/ (accessed 29 October 2014).
19. Raftery J, Fairbank E, Douet L, Dent L, Price A, Milne R, et al. Registration of noncommercial randomised clinical trials: the feasibility of using trial registries to monitor the number of trials. Trials 2012;13:140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-13-140
20. Reveiz L, Cortés-Jofré M, Asenjo Lobos C, Nicita G, Ciapponi A, Garcìa-Dieguez M, et al. Influence of trial registration on reporting quality of randomized trials: study from highest ranked journals. J Clin Epidemiol 2010;63:1216–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.01.013
21. Moja L, Moschetti I, Nurbhai M, Compagnoni A, Liberati A, Grimshaw J, et al. Compliance of clinical trial registries with the World Health Organization minimum data set: a survey. Trials 2009;10:56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-10-56
22. Ghersi D, Clarke M, Berlin J, Gulmezoglu AM, Kush R, Lumbiganon P, et al. Reporting the findings of clinical trials: a discussion paper. Bull World Health Organ 2008;86:492–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.2471/BLT.08.053769
23. Califf R, Zarin D, Kramer J, Sherman R, Aberle L, Tasneem A. Characteristics of clinical trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, 2007–2010. JAMA 2012;307:1838–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.2012.3424
24. Sekeres M, Gold JL, Chan AW, Lexchin J, Moher D, Van Laethem MLP, et al. Poor reporting of scientific leadership information in clinical trial registers. PLOS ONE 2008;3:e1610. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0001610
25. Ross JS, Mulvey GK, Hines EM, Nissen SE, Krumholz HM. Trial publication after registration in ClinicalTrials.Gov: a cross-sectional analysis. PLOS Med 2009;6:e1000144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000144
26. Bourgeois FT, Murthy S, Mandl KD. Outcome reporting among drug trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov. Ann Intern Med 2010;153:158–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-153-3-201008030-00006
27. Mathieu S, Boutron I, Moher D, Altman DG, Ravaud P. Comparison of registered and published primary outcomes in randomized controlled trials. JAMA 2009;302:977–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.2009.1242
28. Dwan K, Altman DG, Cresswell L, Blundell M, Gamble CL, Williamson PR. Comparison of protocols and registry entries to published reports for randomised controlled trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011;1: MR000031. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000031.pub2
29. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLOS Med 2009;6:e1000100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100
30. UK Clinical Research Collaboration Health Research Classification System (UKCRC HRCS) Online. List of Research Activity Codes. URL: www.hrcsonline.net/rac/overview (accessed 3 October 2014).
31. Thabane L, Ma J, Chu R, Cheng J, Ismaila A, Rios L, et al. A tutorial on pilot studies: the what, why and how. BMC Med Res Methodol 2010;10:1. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-10-1
32. Schwartz D, Lellouch J. Explanatory and pragmatic attitudes in therapeutical trials. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62:499–505. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.01.012
33. Cooksey D. A Review of UK Health Research Funding. Norwich: The Stationery Office; 2006.
34. Chalkidou K, Whicher D, Kary W, Tunis S. Comparative effectiveness research priorities: identifying critical gaps in evidence for clinical and health policy decision making. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009;25:241–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0266462309990225
35. Jones R, Lamont T, Haines A. Setting priorities for research and development in the NHS: a case study on the interface between primary and secondary care. BMJ 1995;311:1076–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.311.7012.1076
36. Noorani HZ, Husereau DR, Boudreau R, Skidmore B. Priority setting for health technology assessments: a systematic review of current practical approaches. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2007;23:310–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S026646230707050X
37. Tomlinson M, Swartz L, Officer A, Chan KY, Rudan I, Saxena S. Research priorities for health of people with disabilities: an expert opinion exercise. Lancet 2009;374:1857–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61910-3
38. Sibbald SL, Singer PA, Upshur R, Martin DK. Priority setting: what constitutes success? A conceptual framework for successful priority setting. BMC Health Serv Res 2009;9:43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-9-43
39. Gandhi GY, Murad MH, Fujiyoshi A, Mullan RJ, Flynn DN, Elamin MB, et al. Patient-important outcomes in registered diabetes trials. JAMA 2008;299:2543–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.299.21.2543
40. Montori VM, Wang YG, Alonso-Coello P, Bhagra S. Systematic evaluation of the quality of randomized controlled trials in diabetes. Diabetes Care 2006;29:1833–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/dc06-0077
41. Rahimi K, Malhotra A, Banning A, Jenkinson C. Outcome selection and role of patient reported outcomes in contemporary cardiovascular trials: systematic review. BMJ 2010;341:c5707. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c5707
42. Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet 2009;374:86–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60329-9
43. Jones A, Conroy E, Williamson P, Clarke M, Gamble C. The use of systematic reviews in the planning, design and conduct of randomised trials: a retrospective cohort of NIHR HTA funded trials. BMC Med Res Methodol 2013;13:50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-50
44. Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gøtzsche PC, Devereaux PJ, et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. J Clin Epidemiol 2010;63:e1–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.03.004
45. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias – dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 1995;273:408–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.1995.03520290060030
46. Dickersin K, Chan S, Chalmers TC, Sacks HS, Smith J. Publication bias and clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1987;8:343–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0197-2456(87)90155-3
47. Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. URL: www.cochrane-handbook.org (accessed 25 November 2014).
48. Thorpe KE, Zwarenstein M, Oxman AD, Treweek S, Furberg CD, Altman DG, et al. A pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS): a tool to help trial designers. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62:464-75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.12.011
49. Devereaux PJ, Manns BJ, Ghali WA, Quan H, Lacchetti C, Montori VM, et al. Physician interpretations and textbook definitions of blinding terminology in randomized controlled trials. JAMA 2001;285:2000-3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.285.15.2000
50. Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, Horton R, Moher D, Olkin I, et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials: the CONSORT statement. JAMA 1996;276:637-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.1996.03540080059030
51. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel group randomized trials. BMC Med Res Methodol 2001;1:2. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-1-2
52. Chalmers I, Rounding C, Lock K. Descriptive survey of non-commercial randomised controlled trials in the United Kingdom, 1980-2002. BMJ2003;327:1017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7422.1017
53. Williams J, Russell I, Dural D, Cheung W.-Y, Farrin A, Bloor K, et al. What are the clinical outcome and cost effectiveness of endoscopy undertaken by nurses when compared with doctors? A Multi-Institution Nurse Endoscopy Trial (MINuET). Health Technol Assess 2006;10(40). http://dx.doi.org/10.3310/hta10400
54. Walley T. Health technology assessment in England: assessment and appraisal. Med J Aust 2007;187:283-5.
55. Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). Description of the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations; 2004. URL: www.mhra.gov.uk/home/groups/l-unit1/documents/websiteresources/con2022633.pdf (accessed 25 November 2014).
56. NHS Executive. Ethics Committee Review of Multicentre Research. HSG (97). 1997. URL: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/ Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_4009191 (accessed 25 November 2014).
57. Department of Health (DH). Local Research Ethics Committees. 1991. London; DH. URL: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_4002874 (accessed 25 November 2014).
58. Department of Health (DH). Requirements to Support Research in the NHS. 2009. London; DH. URL: www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/documents/digitalasset/dh_102098.pdf (accessed 25 November 2014).
59. Academy of Medical Sciences. A New Pathway for the Regulation and Governance of Health Research. London: Academy of Medical Sciences; 2011.
60. Gajewski B, Simon S, Carlson S. Predicting accrual in clinical trials with Bayesian posterior predictive distributions. Stat Med 2008;27:2328-40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sim.3128
61. Williford W, Bingham S, Weiss D, Collins JF, Rains K, Krol WF. The ‘constant intake rate’ assumption in interim recruitment goal methodology for multicenter clinical trials. J Chronic Dis 1987;40:297-307. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0021-9681(87)90045-2
62. Carter R, Sonne S, Brady K. Practical considerations for estimating clinical trial accrual periods: application to a multi-center effectiveness study. BMC Med Res Methodol 2005;5:11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-5-11
63. Moussa MAA. Planning a clinical trial with allowance for cost and patient recruitment rate. Comput Programs Biomed 1984;18:173-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0010-468X(84)90049-7
64. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist G, Kunz R, Brozek J, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence: cost study limitations (risk of bias). J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:407–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.017
65. Buchan JC, Spokes DM. Do recorded abstracts from scientific meetings concur with the research presented? Eye 2010;24:695–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/eye.2009.133
66. Watson J, Torgerson D. Increasing recruitment to randomised trials: a review of randomised controlled trials. BMC Med Res Methodol 2006;6:34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-6-34
67. Treweek S, Mitchell E, Pitkethly M, Cook J, Kjeldstrom M, Taskila T, et al. Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised controlled trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010;1:MR000013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub4
68. Menon U, Gentry-Meharaj A, Ryan A, Sharma A, Burnell M, Hallett R, et al. Recruitment to multicentre trials – lessons from UKCTOCS: descriptive study. BMJ 2008;337:a2079. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a2079
69. Fletcher B, Gheorghe A, Moore D, Wilson S, Damery S. Improving the recruitment activity of clinicians in randomised controlled trials: a systematic review. BMJ Open 2012;2:e000496. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000496
70. Booker C, Harding S, Benzeval M. A systematic review of the effect of retention methods in population-based cohort studies. BMC Public Health 2011;11:249. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-11-249
71. Meyers K, Webb A, Frantz J, Randall M. What does it take to retain substance-abusing adolescents in research protocols? Delineation of effort required, strategies undertaken, costs incurred, and 6-month post-treatment differences by retention difficulty. Drug Alcohol Depend 2003;69:73–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0376-8716(02)00252-1
72. Fisher L, Hessler D, Naranjo D, Polonsky W. AASAP: A program to increase recruitment and retention in clinical trials. Patient Educ Couns 2012;86:372–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2011.07.002
73. Hamdy F. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Treatment for Clinically Localised Prostate Cancer. URL: www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN20141297?q=20141297&filters=&sort=&offset=1&totalResults=1&page=1&pageSize=10&searchType=basic-search (accessed 25 November 2014).
74. Donovan J, Hamdy F, Neal D, Peters T, Oliver S, Brindle L, et al. Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) feasibility study. Health Technol Assess 2003;7(14). http://dx.doi.org/10.3310/hta7140
75. Lane JA, Wade J, Down L, Bonnington S, Holding PN, Lennon T, et al. A Peer Review Intervention for Monitoring and Evaluating sites (PRIME) that improved randomized controlled trial conduct and performance. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:628–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.10.003
76. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 Statement: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. J Clin Epidemiol 2010;63:834–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.02.005
77. Barnard K, Dent L, Cook A. A systematic review of models to predict recruitment to multicentre clinical trials. BMC Med Res Methodol 2010;10:63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-10-63
78. Department of Health (DH). Guidance on Funding Excess Treatment Costs Related to Non-commercial Research Studies and Applying for a Subvention. London: DH; 2009. URL: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130107105354/http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/documents/digitalasset/dh_097627.pdf (accessed 25 November 2014).
79. NHS Executive. Responsibilities for Meeting Patient Care Costs Associated with Research and Development in the NHS. HSG(97)32. London: Department of Health; 1997.
80. Al-Marzouki S, Roberts I, Evans S, Marshall T. Selective reporting in clinical trials: analysis of trial protocols accepted by The Lancet. Lancet 2008;372:201. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61060-0
81. Chan AW, Krleza-Jeric K, Schmid I, Altman DG. Outcome reporting bias in randomized trials funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. CMAJ 2004;171:735–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.1041086
82. Ewart R, Lausen H, Millian N. Undisclosed changes in outcomes in randomized controlled trials: an observational study. Ann Fam Med 2009;7:542–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1370/afm.1017
83. Kavvoura FK, McQueen MB, Khoury MJ, Tanzi RE, Bertram L, Ioannidis JPA. Evaluation of the potential excess of statistically significant findings in published genetic association studies: application to Alzheimer’s disease. Am J Epidemiol 2008;168:855–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwn206
84. Pildal J, Chan AW, Hrobjartsson A, Forfang E, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC. Comparison of descriptions of allocation concealment in trial protocols and the published reports: cohort study. BMJ 2005;330:1049. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38414.422650.8F
85. Scharf O, Colevas AD. Adverse event reporting in publications compared with sponsor database for cancer clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:3933–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2005.05.3959
86. Turner EH, Matthews AM, Linardatos E, Tell RA, Rosenthal R. Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy. N Engl J Med 2008;358:252–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa065779
87. Vedula SS, Bero L, Scherer RW, Dickersin K. Outcome reporting in industry-sponsored trials of gabapentin for off-label use. N Engl J Med 2009;361:1963–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa0906126
88. Chan AW, Hrobjartsson A, Jorgensen KJ, Gotzsche PC, Altman DG. Discrepancies in sample size calculations and data analyses reported in randomised trials: comparison of publications with protocols. BMJ 2008;337:a2299. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a2299
89. Hahn S, Williamson PR, Hutton JL. Investigation of within-study selective reporting in clinical research: follow-up of applications submitted to a local research ethics committee. J Eval Clin Pract 2002;8:353–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2753.2002.00314.x
90. Charles P, Giraudeau B, Dechartres A, Baron G, Ravaud P. Reporting of sample size calculation in randomised controlled trials: review. BMJ 2009;338:b1732. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b1732
91. Bland JM. The tyranny of power: is there a better way to calculate sample size? BMJ 2009;339:b3985. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b3985
92. Hernández A, Steyerberg E, Taylor G, Marmarou A, Habbema J, Maas I. Subgroup analysis and covariate adjustment in randomized clinical trials of traumatic brain injury: a systematic review. Neurosurgery 2005;57:1244–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1227/01.NEU.0000186039.57548.96
93. Chan AW. Bias, spin, and misreporting: time for full access to trial protocols and results. PLOS Med 2008;5:1533–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050230
94. Chan A-W, Tetzlaff JM, Altman DG, Laupacis A, Gøtzsche PC, Krlezˇa-Jeric K, et al. SPIRIT 2013 statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Ann Intern Med 2013;158:200–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-158-3-201302050-00583
95. Pocock S, Travison T, Wruck L. Figures in clinical trial reports: current practice and scope for improvement. Trials 2007;8:36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-8-36
96. Djulbegovic B, Kumar A, Glasziou PP, Perera R, Reljic T, Dent L, et al. New treatments compared to established treatments in randomized trials (review). Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;10:MR000024.
97. Anderson JP, Bush JW, Chen M, Dolen D. Policy space areas and properties of benefit cost/utility analysis. JAMA 1986:255:794–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.1986.03370060108029
98. Black WC. The CE plane: a graphic representation of cost-effectiveness. Med Decis Mak 1990;10:212–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0272989X9001000308
99. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O’Brien BJ, Stoddart GL. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.
100. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). Healthcare Improvement Scotland. 2012. URL: www.sign.ac.uk./guidelines/index.html (accessed 25 November 2014).
101. Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS). Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing. 2012. URL: www.health.gov.au/pbs (accessed 25 November 2014).
102. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. URL: www.nice.org.uk/article/PMG9/chapter/Foreword (accessed 3 May 2012).
103. Raftery J. Should NICE’s threshold range for cost per QALY be raised? No. BMJ 2009;338:b185. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b185
104. Towse A. Should NICE’s threshold range for cost per QALY be raised? Yes. BMJ 2009;338:b181. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b181
105. Petrou S, Gray A. Economic evaluation alongside randomised controlled trials: design, conduct, analysis, and reporting. BMJ 2011;342:14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d1548
106. Petrou S, Gray A. Economic evaluation using decision analytical modelling: design, conduct, analysis, and reporting. BMJ 2011;342:d1766. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d1766
107. Sculpher M, Claxton K, Drummond M. Whither trial-based economic evaluation for health care decision making? Health Econ 2006;15:677–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hec.1093
108. Barber JA, Thompson SG. Analysis and interpretation of cost data in randomised controlled trial: review of published studies. BMJ 1998;317:1195–200. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.317.7167.1195
109. Doshi JA, Glick HA, Polsky D. Analyses of cost data in economic evaluations conducted alongside randomized controlled trials. Value Health 2006;9:334–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2006.00122.x
110. O’Sullivan AK, Hompson D, Rummond MF. Collection of health economic data alongside clinical trials: is there a future for piggyback evaluations? Value Health 2005;8:67–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.03065.x
111. Glick HA, Doshi JA, Sonnad SS, Polsky D. Economic Evaluation in Clinical Trials. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007.
112. Evers S, Goossens M, de Vet H, van Tulder M, Ament A. Criteria list for assessment of methodological quality of economic evaluations: consensus on health economic criteria. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2005;21:240–5.
113. Chiou CF, Hay JW, Wallace JF, Bloom BS, Neumann PJ, Sullivan SD, et al. Development and validation of a grading system for the quality of cost-effectiveness studies. Med Care 2003;41:32–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00005650-200301000-00007
114. Anon. Critical Assessment of Economic Evaluation. In Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O’Brien BJ, Stoddart GL, editors. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005. pp. 27–54.
115. Briggs A, O’Brien BJ. The death of cost-minimization analysis? Health Econ 2001;10:179–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hec.584
116. Kaitin KI, DiMasi JA. Pharmaceutical innovation in the 21st century: new drug approvals in the first decade, 2000–2009. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2011;89:183–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/clpt.2010.286
117. DiMasi JA, Hansen RW, Grabowski HG. The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs. J Health Econ 2003;22:151–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-6296(02)00126-1
118. Adams C, Brantner VV. Spending on new drug development. Health Econ 2010;19:130–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hec.1454
119. Light D, Warburton R. Demythologizing the high costs of pharmaceutical research. BioSocieties 2011;6:34–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/biosoc.2010.40
120. Hackshaw A, Farrant H, Bulley S, Seckl M, Ledermann J. Setting up non-commercial clinical trials takes too long in the UK: findings from a perspective study. J R Soc Med 2008;101:299–304. http://dx.doi.org/10.1258/jrsm.2008.070373
121. Hutchings H, Lloyd G, Snooks H, Russell I. A1 financial and time costs of R&D governance and regulation in England and Wales: evidence from the SAFER 2 trial. Emerg Med J 2011;28:e2. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2011-200645.1
122. Snowdon C, Elbourne D, Garcia J, Campbell M, Entwistle V, Francis D, et al. Financial considerations in the conduct of multi-centre randomised controlled trials: evidence from a qualitative study. Trials 2006;7:34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-7-34
123. Al-Shahi S, Brock T, Dennis M, Sandercock P, White P, Warlow C. Research governance impediments to clinical trials: a retrospective survey. J R Soc Med 2007;100:101–4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1258/jrsm.100.2.101
124. Martin D, Maguire M, Fine S. Identifying and eliminating the roadblocks to comparative-effectiveness research. N Engl J Med 2010;363:105–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1001201
125. Abernethy A, Lapointe N, Wheeler J, Irvine R, Patwardhanm M, Matchar D. Horizon Scan: To What Extent Do Changes in Third Party Payment Affect Clinical Trials and the Evidence Base? U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2009. URL: www.cms.gov/Medicare/Coverage/DeterminationProcess/downloads/id67ata.pdf (accessed 25 November 2014).
126. Chakravarthy U, Harding SP, Rogers CA, Downes SM, Lotery AJ, Culliford LA, et al. on behalf of the IVAN study investigators. Alternative treatments to inhibit VEGF in age related choroidal neovascularisation: 2-year findings of the IVAN randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2013;382:1258–67. http://dx.doi.org/1.1016/S0140-6736(13)61501-9
127. Department of Health (DH). Attributing the costs of health and social care Research & Development (AcoRD). London: DH; 2012. URL: www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-on-attributing-the-costs-of-health-and-social-care-research (accessed 3 November 2014).
128. Bailey C. Funding the NHS. Implementing Culyer. In Baker R, Kirk S, editors. Research and Development for the NHS. 3rd edn. Oxford: Radcliffe Medical Press; 1998. pp. 59–72.
129. Phillips C, Moustaki I. Higher Education Pay and Prices Index: July 2009. Higher Education Research Database; 2009. URL: www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/Publications/Pages/HEPPI1July2009.aspx(accessed 24 November 2014).
130. Dent L, Taylor R, Jolly K, Raftery J. ‘Flogging dead horses’: evaluating when have clinical trials achieved sufficiency and stability? A case study in cardiac rehabilitation. Trials 2011;12:83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-12-83
131. International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). Statistical Principles For Clinical Trials. 1998. URL: www.ich.org (accessed 24 November 2014).
132. Getz KA, Zuckerman R, Cropp AB, Hindle AL, Krauss R, Kaitin KI. Measuring the incidence, causes, and repercussions of protocol amendments. Drug Info J 2011;45:265-75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/009286151104500307