Defining key design elements of registry-based randomised controlled trials: a scoping review
Open Access
- 22 June 2020
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Springer Nature in Trials
- Vol. 21 (1) , 1-22
Abstract
Background: Traditional randomised controlled trials remain the gold standard for improving clinical care but they do have their limitations, including their associated high costs, high failure rate and limited external validity. An alternative methodology is the newly defined, prospective, registry-based randomised controlled trial (RRCT), where treatment and outcome data is collected in an existing registry. This scoping review explores the current literature regarding RRCTs to help identify the key design elements of RRCTs and the characteristics of clinical registries on which they are reliant on. Methods: A scoping review methodology conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines was performed. Four databases were searched for articles published from inception to June 2018: Medline; Embase; the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and; Scopus. The search strategy included MeSH and text words related to RRCT. Results: We identified 2369 articles of which 75 were selected for full-text screening. Of these, only 17 articles satisfied our inclusion criteria. All studies were published between 1996 and 2017 and all were investigator-initiated. Study designs were mainly multi-site comparative/effectiveness studies incorporating the use of disease registries (n = 8), procedure registries (n = 8) and a health services registry (n = 1). The low cost, reduced administrative burden and enhanced external validity of RRCTs make them an attractive research methodology which can be used to address questions of public health importance. We identified that that there are variable definitions of what constituted a RRCT and that issues related to ethical conduct and data integrity, completeness, timeliness, validation and endpoint adjudication need to be carefully addressed. Conclusion: RRCTs potentially have an important role to play in informing best clinical practice and health policy. There are a number of issues that need to be addressed to optimise the utility of this approach, including establishing universally accepted criteria for the definition of a RRCT.Keywords
Funding Information
- NA (NA)
This publication has 42 references indexed in Scilit:
- Format and readability of an enhanced invitation letter did not affect participation rates in a cancer registry-based study: a randomized controlled trialJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2013
- Cardiovascular registries: a novel platform for randomised clinical trialsHeart, 2012
- Seasonal Influenza Vaccination Reminders for Children with High-Risk ConditionsAmerican Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2012
- Randomized Trial of Targeted Performance Feedback to Facilitate Quality Improvement in Acute Myocardial Infarction CareCirculation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes, 2011
- Existing data sources for clinical epidemiology: The Western Denmark Heart RegistryClinical Epidemiology, 2010
- Randomized Trials or Population-based RegistriesEuropean Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, 2007
- Challenges and Successes of Immunization Registry Reminders at Inner-City PracticesAcademic Pediatrics, 2006
- Scoping studies: towards a methodological frameworkInternational Journal of Social Research Methodology, 2005
- The Impact of Reminder-Recall Interventions on Low Vaccination Coverage in an Inner-City PopulationArchives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 2004
- Femoral fractures in postmenopausal breast cancer patients treated with adjuvant tamoxifenBreast Cancer Research and Treatment, 1996