Evidence mapPaperPMID 41864946Full record

ArticleTrials2026

Towards high-quality and timely interim analyses in adaptive trials: a scoping review of best practice and evidence gaps.

Katie H Thomson, Opeyemi Agbeleye, Chizoba Oparah, Alex Inskip, Matthew Breckons, Michelle Bardgett, Alex Bevin-Nicholls, Helen Hancock, Helen Mossop, Julia Phillipson and 5 more

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Katie H ThomsonPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE2 4BN, UK. katie.thomson@newcastle.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9614-728X
Opeyemi AgbeleyePopulation Health Sciences Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE2 4BN, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0008-6529-427X
Chizoba OparahPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE2 4BN, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0008-9993-7683
Alex InskipPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE2 4BN, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0006-9946-667X
Matthew BreckonsPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE2 4BN, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3057-6767
Michelle BardgettPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE2 4BN, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1393-2010
Alex Bevin-NichollsPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE2 4BN, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3791-6402
Helen HancockPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE2 4BN, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1494-8551
Helen MossopPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE2 4BN, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6260-3734
Julia PhillipsonPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE2 4BN, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1358-4223
Dawn TearePopulation Health Sciences Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE2 4BN, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3994-0051
Zoe WalmsleyPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE2 4BN, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1253-6668
Nina WilsonPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE2 4BN, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5908-1720
Dawn CraigPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE2 4BN, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5808-0096
James M S WasonPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE2 4BN, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4691-126X

Funding

National Institute for Health and Care Research CTU Support Funding scheme
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAdaptive designs (ADs) are increasingly used, whereby outcome data accumulated during the trial may inform a trial's course in accordance with pre-specified rules at interim analyses. The benefits however will only be realised if the approaches to conducting interim analyses are optimised. This study aims to identify existing literature highlighting best practice (and existing evidence gaps) with regard to conducting high-quality, timely interim analyses.

methodsMedline and Embase databases were searched for studies published between 2005 and July 2025 to identify best practice models and lessons learned for interim analyses in the delivery of adaptive trials. Specifically, we considered papers that discussed adaptive trial methodological approaches (Phases II-IV) in any clinical population and condition. A narrative synthesis focused on the following outcomes was conducted: design considerations, project/trial management, data management, statistical processes, trial committee processes, the implementation of interim decisions and patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE).

resultsWe screened 6720 articles from databases and citation chaining and assessed 329 articles at full text. One hundred and one articles representing 92 unique studies were deemed eligible for inclusion. Key issues included the following: (a) Detailed planning of interim analyses set out in the protocol, and all patient information sheets for possible changes prepared in advance; (b) Effective communication and collaborative decision-making processes across stakeholders, effective staff training, and prompt site query resolutions; (c) Use of electronic data capture with automated data flow processes with integrated query processes to improve data quality; and (d) Use of secure databases with data transfer procedures to maintain data integrity.

conclusionThe currently available data suggest that although there is a considerable volume of evidence with regards to the conduct of adaptive trials and good trial management, the existing literature base offers limited specific guidance for interim analyses. There are significant gaps in the literature regarding best practice guidance related to PPIE and statistical considerations in adaptive trials. While there are examples of innovative methods speeding up the collation and analysis of data used for interim analyses, we advocate more robust research exploring the operational opportunities and challenges with regards to undertaking adaptive trials.

Indexed as

Adaptive Clinical Trials as TopicResearch DesignData Interpretation, StatisticalEvidence GapsHumansTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID41864946
PMCPMC13130667

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.