Tolerating bad health research: the continuing scandal.

BACKGROUND: At the 2015 REWARD/EQUATOR conference on research waste, the late Doug Altman revealed that his only regret about his 1994 BMJ paper 'The scandal of poor medical research' was that he used the word 'poor' rather than 'bad'. But how much research is bad? And what would improve things? MAIN TEXT: We focus on randomised trials and look at scale, participants and cost. We randomly selected up to two quantitative intervention reviews published by all clinical Cochrane Review Groups between May 2020 and April 2021. Data including the risk of bias, number of participants, intervention type and country were extracted for all trials included in selected reviews. High risk of bias trials was classed as bad. The cost of high risk of bias trials was estimated using published estimates of trial cost per participant. We identified 96 reviews authored by 546 reviewers from 49 clinical Cochrane Review Groups that included 1659 trials done in 84 countries. Of the 1640 trials providing risk of bias information, 1013 (62%) were high risk of bias (bad), 494 (30%) unclear and 133 (8%) low risk of bias. Bad trials were spread across all clinical areas and all countries. Well over 220,000 participants (or 56% of all participants) were in bad trials. The low estimate of the cost of bad trials was £726 million; our high estimate was over £8 billion. We have five recommendations: trials should be neither funded (1) nor given ethical approval (2) unless they have a statistician and methodologist; trialists should use a risk of bias tool at design (3); more statisticians and methodologists should be trained and supported (4); there should be more funding into applied methodology research and infrastructure (5). CONCLUSIONS: Most randomised trials are bad and most trial participants will be in one. The research community has tolerated this for decades. This has to stop: we need to put rigour and methodology where it belongs - at the centre of our science.

Tackling the lack of diversity in health research

Routen et al discuss the lack of diversity in health research. High-quality health research is central to evidence-informed health care. By assessing evidence on treatments, initiatives, and different ways of delivering services and changing practice where appropriate, health outcomes are improved. A survey of Wellcome Trust data found that people of White British ethnicity were 64% more likely than ethnic minority groups to have participated in health research, even when accounting for socioeconomic status, age, and sex. There has also been underrepresentation of ethnic minorities in COVID-19 research, including randomized trials of potential treatments, and vaccination and vaccine research, despite the greater COVID-19 burden experienced by ethnic minorities.

Bah humbug! Association between sending Christmas cards to trial participants and trial retention: randomised study within a trial conducted simultaneously across eight host trials.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of sending Christmas cards to participants in randomised controlled trials to increase retention rate at follow-ups, and to explore the feasibility of doing a study within a trial (SWAT) across multiple host trials simultaneously. DESIGN: Randomised SWAT conducted simultaneously across eight host trials. SETTING: Eight randomised controlled trials researching various areas including surgery and smoking cessation. PARTICIPANTS: 3223 trial participants who were still due at least one follow-up from their host randomised controlled trial. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomised (1:1, separately by each host trial) to either received a Christmas card in mid-December 2019 or to not receive a card. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Proportion of participants completing their next follow-up (retention rate) within their host randomised controlled trial. RESULTS: 1469 participants (age 16-94 years; 70% (n=1033) female; 96% (813/847) white ethnicity) across the eight host randomised controlled trials were involved in the analysis (cut short owing to covid-19). No evidence was found of a difference in retention rate between the two arms for any of the host trials when analysed separately or when the results were combined (85.3% (639/749) for cards versus 85.4% (615/720) for no card; odds ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.71 to 1.29; P=0.77). No difference was observed when comparing just participants who were due a follow-up in the 30 days after receiving the card (odds ratio 0.96, 0.42 to 2.21). No evidence of a difference in time to complete the questionnaire was found (hazard ratio 1.01, 95% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.13; P=0.80). These results were robust to post hoc sensitivity analyses. The cost of this intervention was £0.76 (€0.91; $1.02) per participant, and it will have a carbon footprint of approximately 140 g CO2 equivalent per card. One benefit of this approach was the need to only submit one ethics application. CONCLUSIONS: Sending Christmas cards to participants in randomised controlled trials does not increase retention. Undertaking a SWAT within multiple randomised controlled trials at the same time is, however, possible. This approach should be used more often to build an evidence base to support selection of recruitment and retention strategies. Although no evidence of a boost to retention was found, embedding a SWAT in multiple host trials simultaneously has been shown to be possible. STUDY REGISTRATION: SWAT repository https://www.qub.ac.uk/sites/TheNorthernIrelandNetworkforTrialsMethodologyResearch/FileStore/Filetoupload,846275,en.pdf#search=SWAT%2082.

Letter on "Sharing trial results directly with trial participants and other stakeholders after the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic hit the UK - experience from the ActWELL trial".

After the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic took hold in the UK, the ActWELL trial team's plans to present the trial results to participants and other stakeholders had to change. Instead of face-face events, three online events were planned and hosted successfully. In this article, we describe the choices made in planning and organisation of the online events including things we would do differently if we were to do it again. We think that online events are a useful platform when informing participants and other stakeholders of the results of your trial, even beyond the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, and we hope this article can help other trial teams to plan their own online events.