Health Services Research, ScHARR, University of Sheffield, Regent Court, Regent St, Sheffield S1 4DA, UK.
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010 Jul 16;10:67. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-10-67.
In 2004, a review of pilot studies published in seven major medical journals during 2000-01 recommended that the statistical analysis of such studies should be either mainly descriptive or focus on sample size estimation, while results from hypothesis testing must be interpreted with caution. We revisited these journals to see whether the subsequent recommendations have changed the practice of reporting pilot studies. We also conducted a survey to identify the methodological components in registered research studies which are described as 'pilot' or 'feasibility' studies. We extended this survey to grant-awarding bodies and editors of medical journals to discover their policies regarding the function and reporting of pilot studies.
Papers from 2007-08 in seven medical journals were screened to retrieve published pilot studies. Reports of registered and completed studies on the UK Clinical Research Network (UKCRN) Portfolio database were retrieved and scrutinized. Guidance on the conduct and reporting of pilot studies was retrieved from the websites of three grant giving bodies and seven journal editors were canvassed.
54 pilot or feasibility studies published in 2007-8 were found, of which 26 (48%) were pilot studies of interventions and the remainder feasibility studies. The majority incorporated hypothesis-testing (81%), a control arm (69%) and a randomization procedure (62%). Most (81%) pointed towards the need for further research. Only 8 out of 90 pilot studies identified by the earlier review led to subsequent main studies. Twelve studies which were interventional pilot/feasibility studies and which included testing of some component of the research process were identified through the UKCRN Portfolio database. There was no clear distinction in use of the terms 'pilot' and 'feasibility'. Five journal editors replied to our entreaty. In general they were loathe to publish studies described as 'pilot'.
Pilot studies are still poorly reported, with inappropriate emphasis on hypothesis-testing. Authors should be aware of the different requirements of pilot studies, feasibility studies and main studies and report them appropriately. Authors should be explicit as to the purpose of a pilot study. The definitions of feasibility and pilot studies vary and we make proposals here to clarify terminology.
2004 年,对 2000-01 年期间在七大医学期刊上发表的初步研究进行的回顾性审查建议,此类研究的统计分析应主要是描述性的或侧重于样本量估算,而假设检验的结果必须谨慎解释。我们重新查看了这些期刊,看看后续的建议是否改变了初步研究的报告实践。我们还进行了一项调查,以确定在注册研究中被描述为“初步”或“可行性”研究的方法学组成部分。我们将这项调查扩展到拨款机构和医学期刊编辑,以了解他们对初步研究的功能和报告的政策。
筛选 2007-08 年七大医学期刊上发表的论文,检索发表的初步研究报告。检索英国临床研究网络(UKCRN)项目数据库中注册并完成的研究报告,并进行仔细审查。从三个拨款机构的网站上检索了初步研究的指导方针,并对七个期刊编辑进行了调查。
共发现 54 项 2007-8 年发表的初步或可行性研究,其中 26 项(48%)为干预性初步研究,其余为可行性研究。大多数研究都采用了假设检验(81%)、对照组(69%)和随机程序(62%)。大多数研究(81%)指出需要进一步研究。在早期综述中确定的 90 项初步研究中,仅有 8 项导致随后的主要研究。通过 UKCRN 项目数据库,共确定了 12 项为干预性初步/可行性研究,其中包括对研究过程的某些组成部分的测试。“初步”和“可行性”的使用没有明显区别。我们的请求得到了五个期刊编辑的回复。总的来说,他们不愿发表被描述为“初步”的研究。
初步研究的报告仍然很差,不恰当地强调了假设检验。作者应了解初步研究、可行性研究和主要研究的不同要求,并进行适当报告。作者应明确初步研究的目的。可行性和初步研究的定义各不相同,我们在这里提出建议以澄清术语。