Central coordination as an alternative for local coordination in a multicenter randomized controlled trial: the FAITH trial experience

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Surgeons in the Netherlands, Canada and the US participate in the FAITH trial (Fixation using Alternative Implants for the Treatment of Hip fractures). Dutch sites are managed and visited by a financed central trial coordinator, wher...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Zielinski Stephanie M, Viveiros Helena, Heetveld Martin J, Swiontkowski Marc F, Bhandari Mohit, Patka Peter, Van Lieshout Esther MM
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2012-01-01
Series:Trials
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/13/1/5
id doaj-de14ca7ebe764344acc5918fbc27d39c
record_format Article
spelling doaj-de14ca7ebe764344acc5918fbc27d39c2020-11-25T00:20:34ZengBMCTrials1745-62152012-01-01131510.1186/1745-6215-13-5Central coordination as an alternative for local coordination in a multicenter randomized controlled trial: the FAITH trial experienceZielinski Stephanie MViveiros HelenaHeetveld Martin JSwiontkowski Marc FBhandari MohitPatka PeterVan Lieshout Esther MM<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Surgeons in the Netherlands, Canada and the US participate in the FAITH trial (Fixation using Alternative Implants for the Treatment of Hip fractures). Dutch sites are managed and visited by a financed central trial coordinator, whereas most Canadian and US sites have local study coordinators and receive per patient payment. This study was aimed to assess how these different trial management strategies affected trial performance.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Details related to obtaining ethics approval, time to trial start-up, inclusion, and percentage completed follow-ups were collected for each trial site and compared. Pre-trial screening data were compared with actual inclusion rates.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Median trial start-up ranged from 41 days (P25-P75 10-139) in the Netherlands to 232 days (P25-P75 98-423) in Canada (p = 0.027). The inclusion rate was highest in the Netherlands; median 1.03 patients (P25-P75 0.43-2.21) per site per month, representing 34.4% of the total eligible population. It was lowest in Canada; 0.14 inclusions (P25-P75 0.00-0.28), representing 3.9% of eligible patients (p < 0.001). The percentage completed follow-ups was 83% for Canadian and Dutch sites and 70% for US sites (p = 0.217).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>In this trial, a central financed trial coordinator to manage all trial related tasks in participating sites resulted in better trial progression and a similar follow-up. It is therefore a suitable alternative for appointing these tasks to local research assistants. The central coordinator approach can enable smaller regional hospitals to participate in multicenter randomized controlled trials. Circumstances such as available budget, sample size, and geographical area should however be taken into account when choosing a management strategy.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov: <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00761813">NCT00761813</a></p> http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/13/1/5randomized controlled trialmanagementtrial coordinatortrial performanceinclusionfollow-up
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Zielinski Stephanie M
Viveiros Helena
Heetveld Martin J
Swiontkowski Marc F
Bhandari Mohit
Patka Peter
Van Lieshout Esther MM
spellingShingle Zielinski Stephanie M
Viveiros Helena
Heetveld Martin J
Swiontkowski Marc F
Bhandari Mohit
Patka Peter
Van Lieshout Esther MM
Central coordination as an alternative for local coordination in a multicenter randomized controlled trial: the FAITH trial experience
Trials
randomized controlled trial
management
trial coordinator
trial performance
inclusion
follow-up
author_facet Zielinski Stephanie M
Viveiros Helena
Heetveld Martin J
Swiontkowski Marc F
Bhandari Mohit
Patka Peter
Van Lieshout Esther MM
author_sort Zielinski Stephanie M
title Central coordination as an alternative for local coordination in a multicenter randomized controlled trial: the FAITH trial experience
title_short Central coordination as an alternative for local coordination in a multicenter randomized controlled trial: the FAITH trial experience
title_full Central coordination as an alternative for local coordination in a multicenter randomized controlled trial: the FAITH trial experience
title_fullStr Central coordination as an alternative for local coordination in a multicenter randomized controlled trial: the FAITH trial experience
title_full_unstemmed Central coordination as an alternative for local coordination in a multicenter randomized controlled trial: the FAITH trial experience
title_sort central coordination as an alternative for local coordination in a multicenter randomized controlled trial: the faith trial experience
publisher BMC
series Trials
issn 1745-6215
publishDate 2012-01-01
description <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Surgeons in the Netherlands, Canada and the US participate in the FAITH trial (Fixation using Alternative Implants for the Treatment of Hip fractures). Dutch sites are managed and visited by a financed central trial coordinator, whereas most Canadian and US sites have local study coordinators and receive per patient payment. This study was aimed to assess how these different trial management strategies affected trial performance.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Details related to obtaining ethics approval, time to trial start-up, inclusion, and percentage completed follow-ups were collected for each trial site and compared. Pre-trial screening data were compared with actual inclusion rates.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Median trial start-up ranged from 41 days (P25-P75 10-139) in the Netherlands to 232 days (P25-P75 98-423) in Canada (p = 0.027). The inclusion rate was highest in the Netherlands; median 1.03 patients (P25-P75 0.43-2.21) per site per month, representing 34.4% of the total eligible population. It was lowest in Canada; 0.14 inclusions (P25-P75 0.00-0.28), representing 3.9% of eligible patients (p < 0.001). The percentage completed follow-ups was 83% for Canadian and Dutch sites and 70% for US sites (p = 0.217).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>In this trial, a central financed trial coordinator to manage all trial related tasks in participating sites resulted in better trial progression and a similar follow-up. It is therefore a suitable alternative for appointing these tasks to local research assistants. The central coordinator approach can enable smaller regional hospitals to participate in multicenter randomized controlled trials. Circumstances such as available budget, sample size, and geographical area should however be taken into account when choosing a management strategy.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov: <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00761813">NCT00761813</a></p>
topic randomized controlled trial
management
trial coordinator
trial performance
inclusion
follow-up
url http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/13/1/5
work_keys_str_mv AT zielinskistephaniem centralcoordinationasanalternativeforlocalcoordinationinamulticenterrandomizedcontrolledtrialthefaithtrialexperience
AT viveiroshelena centralcoordinationasanalternativeforlocalcoordinationinamulticenterrandomizedcontrolledtrialthefaithtrialexperience
AT heetveldmartinj centralcoordinationasanalternativeforlocalcoordinationinamulticenterrandomizedcontrolledtrialthefaithtrialexperience
AT swiontkowskimarcf centralcoordinationasanalternativeforlocalcoordinationinamulticenterrandomizedcontrolledtrialthefaithtrialexperience
AT bhandarimohit centralcoordinationasanalternativeforlocalcoordinationinamulticenterrandomizedcontrolledtrialthefaithtrialexperience
AT patkapeter centralcoordinationasanalternativeforlocalcoordinationinamulticenterrandomizedcontrolledtrialthefaithtrialexperience
AT vanlieshoutesthermm centralcoordinationasanalternativeforlocalcoordinationinamulticenterrandomizedcontrolledtrialthefaithtrialexperience
_version_ 1725366567052509184