↓ Skip to main content

Post-trial follow-up methodology in large randomised controlled trials: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Post-trial follow-up methodology in large randomised controlled trials: a systematic review
Published in
Trials, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13063-018-2653-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rebecca Llewellyn-Bennett, Danielle Edwards, Nia Roberts, Atticus H. Hainsworth, Richard Bulbulia, Louise Bowman

Abstract

Randomised controlled clinical trials typically have a relatively brief in-trial follow-up period which can underestimate safety signals and fail to detect long-term hazards, which may take years to appear. Extended follow-up after the scheduled closure of the trial allows detection of both persistent or enhanced beneficial effects following cessation of study treatment (i.e. a legacy effect) and the emergence of possible adverse effects (e.g. development of cancer). A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines to qualitatively compare post-trial follow-up methods used in large randomised controlled trials. Five bibliographic databases, including Medline and the Cochrane Library, and one trial registry were searched. All large randomised controlled trials (more than 1000 adult participants) published from March 2006 to April 2017 were evaluated. Two reviewers screened and extracted data attaining > 95% concordance of papers checked. Assessment of bias in the trials was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Fifty-seven thousand three hundred and fifty-two papers were identified and 65 trials which had post-trial follow-up (PTFU) were included in the analysis. The majority of trials used more than one type of follow-up. There was no evidence of an association between the retention rates of participants in the PTFU period and the type of follow-up used. Costs of PTFU varied widely with data linkage being the most economical. It was not possible to assess associations between risk of bias during the in-trial period and proportions lost to follow-up during the PTFU period. Data captured during the post-trial follow-up period can add scientific value to a trial. However, there are logistical and financial barriers to overcome. Where available, data linkage via electronic registries and records is a cost-effective method which can provide data on a range of endpoints. Not applicable for PROSPERO registration.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 75 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 15%
Researcher 8 11%
Student > Master 8 11%
Other 4 5%
Student > Postgraduate 4 5%
Other 18 24%
Unknown 22 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 8%
Unspecified 4 5%
Psychology 3 4%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 23 31%