↓ Skip to main content

CONSORT 2010 statement: extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials

Overview of attention for article published in Pilot and Feasibility Studies, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#11 of 1,195)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
109 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
776 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
908 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
CONSORT 2010 statement: extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials
Published in
Pilot and Feasibility Studies, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40814-016-0105-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sandra M. Eldridge, Claire L. Chan, Michael J. Campbell, Christine M. Bond, Sally Hopewell, Lehana Thabane, Gillian A. Lancaster, on behalf of the PAFS consensus group

Abstract

The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement is a guideline designed to improve the transparency and quality of the reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). In this article we present an extension to that statement for randomised pilot and feasibility trials conducted in advance of a future definitive RCT. The checklist applies to any randomised study in which a future definitive RCT, or part of it, is conducted on a smaller scale, regardless of its design (eg, cluster, factorial, crossover) or the terms used by authors to describe the study (eg, pilot, feasibility, trial, study). The extension does not directly apply to internal pilot studies built into the design of a main trial, non-randomised pilot and feasibility studies, or phase II studies, but these studies all have some similarities to randomised pilot and feasibility studies and so many of the principles might also apply. The development of the extension was motivated by the growing number of studies described as feasibility or pilot studies and by research that has identified weaknesses in their reporting and conduct. We followed recommended good practice to develop the extension, including carrying out a Delphi survey, holding a consensus meeting and research team meetings, and piloting the checklist. The aims and objectives of pilot and feasibility randomised studies differ from those of other randomised trials. Consequently, although much of the information to be reported in these trials is similar to those in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing effectiveness and efficacy, there are some key differences in the type of information and in the appropriate interpretation of standard CONSORT reporting items. We have retained some of the original CONSORT statement items, but most have been adapted, some removed, and new items added. The new items cover how participants were identified and consent obtained; if applicable, the prespecified criteria used to judge whether or how to proceed with a future definitive RCT; if relevant, other important unintended consequences; implications for progression from pilot to future definitive RCT, including any proposed amendments; and ethical approval or approval by a research review committee confirmed with a reference number. This article includes the 26 item checklist, a separate checklist for the abstract, a template for a CONSORT flowchart for these studies, and an explanation of the changes made and supporting examples. We believe that routine use of this proposed extension to the CONSORT statement will result in improvements in the reporting of pilot trials. Editor's note: In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the BMJ and Pilot and Feasibility Studies journal websites.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 109 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 908 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 901 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 153 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 148 16%
Student > Master 96 11%
Other 52 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 46 5%
Other 188 21%
Unknown 225 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 204 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 117 13%
Psychology 114 13%
Social Sciences 29 3%
Neuroscience 29 3%
Other 122 13%
Unknown 293 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 78. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 February 2020.
All research outputs
#529,565
of 24,929,945 outputs
Outputs from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#11
of 1,195 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,373
of 323,410 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#2
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,929,945 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,195 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 323,410 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.