Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 16, 2025

A Clinical Trial Assessing the Safety, Efficacy, and Delivery of Olive-Oil-Based Three-Chamber Bags for Parenteral Nutrition
Published on: September 20, 2019
Pilot Trial Characteristics, Postpilot Design Modifications, and Feasibility of Full-Scale Trials
Xiangji Ying1, Stephan Ehrhardt1
1Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
Importance:
Pilot trials often lead to study design changes in subsequent full-scale trials. Yet, it remains unclear whether these modifications improve the feasibility of the larger trial.
Objective:
To compare feasibility estimates between pilot and full-scale trials and identify pilot trial characteristics and modifications associated with equivalent or improved feasibility in the full-scale trial.
Design, Setting, And Participants:
This cohort study used pilot trials published between January 2005 and December 2018 and their corresponding full-scale trials. PubMed was searched for trials on February 19, 2022.
Exposures:
Pilot trial characteristics and postpilot trial design modifications.
Main Outcomes And Measures:
The outcome of interest was difference in 3 feasibility parameters: successful screening probability, enrollment rate, and retention probability. These metrics were defined as equivalent or improved if the full-scale trial's estimate was within or exceeding 10% of the pilot trial's estimate.
Results:
A total of 249 pairs of pilot and full-scale trials were analyzed, with 43%, 77%, and 82% of full-scale trials having equivalent or improved successful screening probabilities, enrollment rates, and retention probabilities, respectively. When pilot trials used feasibility progression criteria (relative risk [RR], 1.94; 95% CI, 1.02-5.97) and maintained masking for participants (RR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.04-4.33) or health care practitioners (RR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.03-3.97) consistent with the full-scale trial, the likelihood of achieving equivalent or improved screening success in full-scale trials increased. Increasing study sites after the pilot was associated with higher likelihood of equivalent or improved enrollment rates (RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01-1.08). Adding extra content to the intervention (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.66-0.98), changing to active control (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.48-0.99), administrating the control treatment more frequently (RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.29-0.93), different follow-up lengths (RR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.73-0.97), and more follow-up visits (RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.75-0.98) were associated with lower likelihood of equivalent or improved retention probability in the full-scale trial.
Conclusions And Relevance:
In this cohort study of pilot and full-scale trial pairs, pilot trial characteristics and postpilot modifications had varying associations with full-scale trial's feasibility. If full-scale trials planned for masking, it was desirable to use it in the pilot. Modifications increasing participant burden might decrease full-scale trial feasibility. Trialists and funders should consider both pilot trial data and proposed design changes when assessing full-scale trials.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Clinical Trials: Overview
Clinical Trials
There are four phases in a clinical trial. A phase one...
Preclinical Development: 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,...
Pilot and Numeric Relaying
Crossover Experiments
Crossover designs are performed even with smaller sample sizes since the samples can act as their controls. These are better than simple randomized trials since patients are exposed to all the treatments.

