ABSTRACT
Background Randomized-clinical trials (RCTs) are the gold-standard for comparing health care interventions, but can be limited by early termination, feasibility issues, and prolonged time to trial reporting. In contrast, adaptive clinical trials (ACTs), which are defined by pre-planned modifications and analyses that occur after starting patient recruitment, are gaining popularity as they can streamline trial design and time to reporting. As adaptive methodologies continue to be adopted by researchers, it will be critical to develop a risk-of-bias tool that evaluates the unique methodological features of ACTs so that their quality can be improved and standardized for the future. In our proposed methodological review, we plan to develop a list of risk-of-bias items for ACTs to develop a candidate instrument.
Methods and analysis We will perform a systematic database search to capture: (1) ACTs published in any discipline of medicine and/or surgery; and (2) studies that have proposed or reviewed items pertaining to methodological risk, bias, and/or quality in ACTs. We will perform a comprehensive search of citation databases, such as Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, the Cochrane library, and Web of Science, in addition to multiple grey literature sources to capture published and unpublished literature related to ACTs and studies evaluating the methodological quality of ACTs. We will also search methodological registries for any risk of bias tools for ACTs. All screening and review stages will be performed in duplicate with a third senior author serving as arbitrator for any discrepancies. Included ACTs will be analyzed in a descriptive manner, and we will perform regression analysis to identify factors associated with poor reporting quality and high risk of bias. We will also perform a risk of bias assessment of ACTs using the Cochrane risk-of-bias 2.0 tool and we will assess reporting quality using the CONSORT-ACE tool. These assessments will be performed independently and in duplicate. This will be done to help generate risk of bias concepts, themes, and items that can be included in the candidate tool. For all studies of methodological quality and risk of bias, we will extract all pertinent bias items and/or tools. We will combine conceptually similar items in a descriptive manner and classify them as referring to bias or to other aspects of methodological quality, such as reporting. We will plan to generate pertinent risk of bias items and fields and finally, a candidate tool that will undergo further refinement, testing, and validation in future development stages.
Ethics and dissemination This review does not require ethics approval as human subjects are not involved. As mentioned previously, this study is the first step in developing a tool to evaluate the risk of bias and methodological quality of ACTs.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
N/A - Methodology review
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Conflicts of interest: None
Funding: None
Data Availability
No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study. All relevant data from this study will be made available upon study completion.
