Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 24, 2026

A Novel Method for Involving Women of Color at High Risk for Preterm Birth in Research Priority Setting
Published on: January 12, 2018
Involving clinical experts in prioritising topics for health technology assessment: a randomised controlled trial
Andrew Cook1,2, Elke Streit3, Gill Davage3
1Wessex Institute, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Objectives:
The objective of this study was to explore whether reducing the material supplied to external experts during peer review and decreasing the burden of response would maintain review quality into prioritising research questions for a major research funder.
Methods And Analysis:
Clinical experts who agreed to review documents outlining research for potential commissioning were screened for eligibility and randomised in a factorial design to two types of review materials (long document versus short document) and response modes (structured review form versus free text email response). Previous and current members of the funder's programme groups were excluded. Response quality was assessed by use of a four-point scoring tool and analysed by intention to treat.
Results:
554 consecutive experts were screened for eligibility and 460 were randomised (232 and 228 to long document or short document, respectively; 230 each to structured response or free text). 356 participants provided reviews, 90 did not respond and 14 were excluded after randomisation as not eligible.The pooled mean quality score was 2.4 (SD=0.95). The short document scored 0.037 (Cohen's d=0.039) extra quality points over the long document arm, and the structured response scored 0.335 (Cohen's d=0.353) over free text. The allocation did not appear to have any effect on the experts' willingness to engage with the task.
Conclusions:
Neither providing a short or a long document outlining suggested research was shown to be superior. However, providing a structured form to guide the expert response provided more useful information than allowing free text. The funder should continue to use a structured form to gather responses. It would be acceptable to provide shorter documents to reviewers, if there were reasons to do so.
Trial Registration Number:
ANZCTR12614000167662.
More Related Videos
06:16Involving Individuals with Developmental Language Disorder and Their Parents/Carers in Research Priority Setting
Published on: June 6, 2020
06:28E-Patient Counseling Trial E-PACO: Computer Based Education versus Nurse Counseling for Patients to Prepare for Colonoscopy
Published on: August 1, 2019
Related Concept Videos
Clinical Trials
There are four phases in a clinical trial. A phase one...
Clinical Trials: Overview
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
Hazard Ratio
For example, in a clinical trial...
Nursing Interventions II: Selecting and Classifying the Nursing Interventions
Randomized Experiments
Simple randomization
Simple...