The Challenge of Equipoise in Trials with a Surgical and Non-surgical Comparison: a Qualitative Synthesis Using Meta-ethnography

Overview

Journal Trials

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialties General Medicine
Pharmacology

Date 2021 Oct 8

PMID 34620194

Citations 14

Authors

Loretta Davies

David Beard

Jonathan A Cook

Andrew Price

Ida Osbeck

Francine Toye

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Randomised controlled trials in surgery can be a challenge to design and conduct, especially when including a non-surgical comparison. As few as half of initiated surgical trials reach their recruitment target, and failure to recruit is cited as the most frequent reason for premature closure of surgical RCTs. The aim of this qualitative evidence synthesis was to identify and synthesise findings from qualitative studies exploring the challenges in the design and conduct of trials directly comparing surgical and non-surgical interventions.

Methods: A qualitative evidence synthesis using meta-ethnography was conducted. Six electronic bibliographic databases (Medline, Central, Cinahl, Embase and PsycInfo) were searched up to the end of February 2018. Studies that explored patients' and health care professionals' experiences regarding participating in RCTs with a surgical and non-surgical comparison were included. The GRADE-CERQual framework was used to assess confidence in review findings.

Results: In total, 3697 abstracts and 49 full texts were screened and 26 published studies reporting experiences of patients and healthcare professionals were included. The focus of the studies (24/26) was primarily related to the challenge of recruitment. Two studies explored reasons for non-compliance to treatment allocation following randomisation. Five themes related to the challenges to these types of trials were identified: (1) radical choice between treatments; (2) patients' discomfort with randomisation: I want the best treatment for me as an individual; (3) challenge of equipoise: patients' a priori preferences for treatment; (4) challenge of equipoise: clinicians' a priori preferences for treatment and (5) imbalanced presentation of interventions.

Conclusion: The marked dichotomy between the surgical and non-surgical interventions was highlighted in this review as making recruitment to these types of trials particularly challenging. This review identified factors that increase our understanding of why patients and clinicians may find equipoise more challenging in these types of trials compared to other trial comparisons. Trialists may wish to consider exploring the balance of potential factors influencing patient and clinician preferences towards treatments before they start recruitment, to enable issues specific to a particular trial to be identified and addressed. This may enable trial teams to make more efficient considered design choices and benefit the delivery of such trials.

Citing Articles

Ethical Considerations and Equipoise in Cancer Surgery.

Vakili-Ojarood M, Naseri A, Shirinzadeh-Dastgiri A, Saberi A, HaghighiKian S, Rahmani A Indian J Surg Oncol. 2024; 15(Suppl 3):363-373.

PMID: 39328740 PMC: 11422545. DOI: 10.1007/s13193-024-02023-8.

Comparison of surgical or non-surgical management for non-acute anterior cruciate ligament injury: the ACL SNNAP RCT.

Beard D, Davies L, Cook J, Stokes J, Leal J, Fletcher H Health Technol Assess. 2024; 28(27):1-97.

PMID: 38940695 PMC: 11228690. DOI: 10.3310/VDKB6009.

Strategies to address recruitment to a randomised trial of surgical and non-surgical treatment for cancer: results from a complex recruitment intervention within the Mesothelioma and Radical Surgery 2 (MARS 2) study.

Mills N, Farrar N, Warnes B, Ashton K, Harris R, Rogers C BMJ Open. 2024; 14(5):e079108.

PMID: 38760029 PMC: 11103236. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-079108.

Lessons learnt from the multi-centre LAparoscopic Versus Abdominal hysterectomy (LAVA) randomised controlled trial.

Antoun L, Bevan S, Mahmud A, Jones L, Middleton L, Woolley R Facts Views Vis Obgyn. 2024; 16(1):35-45.

PMID: 38551473 PMC: 11198880. DOI: 10.52054/FVVO.16.1.003.

Exercise therapy, education, and cognitive behavioral therapy alone, or in combination with total knee arthroplasty, in patients with knee osteoarthritis: a randomized feasibility study.

Rognsvag T, Bergvad I, Furnes O, Indrekvam K, Lerdal A, Lindberg M Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2024; 10(1):43.

PMID: 38419024 PMC: 10900652. DOI: 10.1186/s40814-024-01470-y.

References

Realpe A, Adams A, Wall P, Griffin D, Donovan J . A new simple six-step model to promote recruitment to RCTs was developed and successfully implemented. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016; 76:166-74. PMC: 5045272. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.02.002. View

Holmes-Rovner M, Llewellyn-Thomas H, Entwistle V, Coulter A, OConnor A, ROVNER D . Patient choice modules for summaries of clinical effectiveness: a proposal. BMJ. 2001; 322(7287):664-7. PMC: 1119848. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.322.7287.664. View

Jepson M, Elliott D, Conefrey C, Wade J, Rooshenas L, Wilson C . An observational study showed that explaining randomization using gambling-related metaphors and computer-agency descriptions impeded randomized clinical trial recruitment. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018; 99:75-83. PMC: 6015122. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.02.018. View

Donovan J, Paramasivan S, de Salis I, Toerien M . Clear obstacles and hidden challenges: understanding recruiter perspectives in six pragmatic randomised controlled trials. Trials. 2014; 15:5. PMC: 3892115. DOI: 10.1186/1745-6215-15-5. View

McDonald A, Knight R, Campbell M, Entwistle V, Grant A, Cook J . What influences recruitment to randomised controlled trials? A review of trials funded by two UK funding agencies. Trials. 2006; 7:9. PMC: 1475627. DOI: 10.1186/1745-6215-7-9. View

Toye F, Seers K, Barker K . Meta-ethnography to understand healthcare professionals' experience of treating adults with chronic non-malignant pain. BMJ Open. 2017; 7(12):e018411. PMC: 5778293. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018411. View

Hughes-Morley A, Young B, Waheed W, Small N, Bower P . Factors affecting recruitment into depression trials: Systematic review, meta-synthesis and conceptual framework. J Affect Disord. 2014; 172:274-90. DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2014.10.005. View

de Salis I, Tomlin Z, Toerien M, Donovan J . Qualitative research to improve RCT recruitment: issues arising in establishing research collaborations. Contemp Clin Trials. 2008; 29(5):663-70. DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2008.03.003. View

Paramasivan S, Strong S, Wilson C, Campbell B, Blazeby J, Donovan J . A simple technique to identify key recruitment issues in randomised controlled trials: Q-QAT - Quanti-Qualitative Appointment Timing. Trials. 2015; 16:88. PMC: 4359435. DOI: 10.1186/s13063-015-0617-1. View

10.

Potter S, Mills N, Cawthorn S, Donovan J, Blazeby J . Time to be BRAVE: is educating surgeons the key to unlocking the potential of randomised clinical trials in surgery? A qualitative study. Trials. 2014; 15:80. PMC: 4003809. DOI: 10.1186/1745-6215-15-80. View

11.

Clement C, Edwards S, Rapport F, Russell I, Hutchings H . Exploring qualitative methods reported in registered trials and their yields (EQUITY): systematic review. Trials. 2018; 19(1):589. PMC: 6206926. DOI: 10.1186/s13063-018-2983-y. View

12.

Horwood J, Johnson E, Gooberman-Hill R . Understanding involvement in surgical orthopaedic randomized controlled trials: A qualitative study of patient and health professional views and experiences. Int J Orthop Trauma Nurs. 2016; 20:3-12. PMC: 4720819. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijotn.2015.05.002. View

13.

Hamilton D, de Salis I, Donovan J, Birchall M . The recruitment of patients to trials in head and neck cancer: a qualitative study of the EaStER trial of treatments for early laryngeal cancer. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2013; 270(8):2333-7. DOI: 10.1007/s00405-013-2349-8. View

14.

Britten N, Campbell R, Pope C, Donovan J, Morgan M, Pill R . Using meta ethnography to synthesise qualitative research: a worked example. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2002; 7(4):209-15. DOI: 10.1258/135581902320432732. View

15.

Kuczewski M, Marshall P . The decision dynamics of clinical research: the context and process of informed consent. Med Care. 2002; 40(9 Suppl):V45-54. DOI: 10.1097/01.MLR.0000023955.04138.AF. View

16.

Lie M, May C, Kelly T, Robson S . 'Let the computer choose?': the experience of participants in a randomised preference trial of medical versus surgical termination of pregnancy. Sociol Health Illn. 2011; 34(5):746-60. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9566.2011.01412.x. View

17.

Donovan J, de Salis I, Toerien M, Paramasivan S, Hamdy F, Blazeby J . The intellectual challenges and emotional consequences of equipoise contributed to the fragility of recruitment in six randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014; 67(8):912-20. PMC: 4067744. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.03.010. View

18.

Featherstone K, Donovan J . "Why don't they just tell me straight, why allocate it?" The struggle to make sense of participating in a randomised controlled trial. Soc Sci Med. 2002; 55(5):709-19. DOI: 10.1016/s0277-9536(01)00197-6. View

19.

Donovan J, Mills N, Smith M, Brindle L, Jacoby A, Peters T . Quality improvement report: Improving design and conduct of randomised trials by embedding them in qualitative research: ProtecT (prostate testing for cancer and treatment) study. Commentary: presenting unbiased information to patients can be.... BMJ. 2002; 325(7367):766-70. PMC: 1124277. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.325.7367.766. View

20.

Nguyen T, Nguyen E, Warner A, Louie A, Palma D . Failed Randomized Clinical Trials in Radiation Oncology: What Can We Learn?. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2018; 101(5):1018-1024. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2018.04.030. View