↓ Skip to main content

Trial Forge Guidance 1: what is a Study Within A Trial (SWAT)?

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

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
176 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
191 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
103 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
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

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 176 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 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

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%