Title |
Trial Forge Guidance 1: what is a Study Within A Trial (SWAT)?
|
---|---|
Published in |
Trials, February 2018
|
DOI | 10.1186/s13063-018-2535-5 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Shaun Treweek, Simon Bevan, Peter Bower, Marion Campbell, Jacquie Christie, Mike Clarke, Clive Collett, Seonaidh Cotton, Declan Devane, Adel El Feky, Ella Flemyng, Sandra Galvin, Heidi Gardner, Katie Gillies, Jan Jansen, Roberta Littleford, Adwoa Parker, Craig Ramsay, Lynne Restrup, Frank Sullivan, David Torgerson, Liz Tremain, Matthew Westmore, Paula R. Williamson |
Abstract |
Randomised trials are a central component of all evidence-informed health care systems and the evidence coming from them helps to support health care users, health professionals and others to make more informed decisions about treatment. The evidence available to trialists to support decisions on design, conduct and reporting of randomised trials is, however, sparse. Trial Forge is an initiative that aims to increase the evidence base for trial decision-making and in doing so, to improve trial efficiency.One way to fill gaps in evidence is to run Studies Within A Trial, or SWATs. This guidance document provides a brief definition of SWATs, an explanation of why they are important and some practical 'top tips' that come from existing experience of doing SWATs. We hope the guidance will be useful to trialists, methodologists, funders, approvals agencies and others in making clear what a SWAT is, as well as what is involved in doing one. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 73 | 41% |
Ireland | 8 | 5% |
United States | 8 | 5% |
Canada | 7 | 4% |
Australia | 5 | 3% |
Germany | 2 | 1% |
India | 2 | 1% |
France | 2 | 1% |
Switzerland | 2 | 1% |
Other | 10 | 6% |
Unknown | 57 | 32% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 102 | 58% |
Scientists | 50 | 28% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 21 | 12% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 2 | 1% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 103 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 20 | 19% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 16% |
Student > Bachelor | 10 | 10% |
Other | 7 | 7% |
Student > Master | 6 | 6% |
Other | 19 | 18% |
Unknown | 25 | 24% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 34 | 33% |
Psychology | 8 | 8% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 7% |
Social Sciences | 6 | 6% |
Computer Science | 3 | 3% |
Other | 16 | 16% |
Unknown | 29 | 28% |