To Örebro University

oru.seÖrebro University Publications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Paper II: Thematic framework analysis of registry-based randomized controlled trials provided insights for designing trial ready registries
Cundill Centre for Child and Youth Depression, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, 1000 Queen Street W, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M6J 1H4.
Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Peter Gilgan Centre for Research and Learning, 686 Bay Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5G 0A4.
Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Peter Gilgan Centre for Research and Learning, 686 Bay Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5G 0A4.
Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Peter Gilgan Centre for Research and Learning, 686 Bay Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5G 0A4.
Show others and affiliations
2023 (English)In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, ISSN 0895-4356, E-ISSN 1878-5921, Vol. 159, p. 330-343Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

OBJECTIVE: Registry-based randomized controlled trials (RRCTs) are increasingly used, promising to address challenges associated with traditional RCTs. We identified strengths and limitations reported in planned and completed RRCTs to inform future RRCTs.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted an environmental scan of literature discussing conceptual or methodological strengths and limitations of using registries for trial design and conduct (n=12), followed by an analysis of RRCT protocols (n=13) and reports (n=77) identified from a scoping review. Using framework analysis, we developed and refined a conceptual framework of RRCT-specific strengths and limitations. We mapped and interpreted strengths and limitations discussed by authors of RRCT articles using framework codes and quantified the frequencies at which these were mentioned.

RESULTS: Our conceptual framework identified six main RRCT strengths and four main RRCT limitations. Considering implications for RRCT conduct and design, we formulated ten recommendations for registry designers, administrators, and trialists planning future RRCTs.

CONCLUSION: Consideration and application of empirically underpinned recommendations for future registry design and trial conduct may help trialists utilize registries and RRCTs to their full potential.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Pergamon Press, 2023. Vol. 159, p. 330-343
Keywords [en]
RRCTs, best practice, randomized controlled trials, registries, registry-based randomized controlled trials, strengths and limitations
National Category
Public Health, Global Health and Social Medicine
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:oru:diva-105869DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.04.015ISI: 001070913800001PubMedID: 37146660Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85160254956OAI: oai:DiVA.org:oru-105869DiVA, id: diva2:1755303
Note

Funding agencies:

Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) MYG-171684

Canada Research Chairs

Available from: 2023-05-08 Created: 2023-05-08 Last updated: 2025-02-20Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMedScopus

Authority records

Fröbert, Ole

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Fröbert, Ole
By organisation
School of Medical Sciences
In the same journal
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Public Health, Global Health and Social Medicine

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 33 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf