The reporting of progression criteria in protocols of pilot trials designed to assess the feasibility of main trials is insufficient: a meta-epidemiological study

Table 3 Factors associated with using progression criteria

Variable	Univariate model		Multivariable model 1		Multivariable model 2
Variable	OR (95% CI)	p	aOR (95% CI)	p	aOR (95% CI)	p
Journal
PAFS	1		1		1
BMJ Open	1.07 (0.42–2.69)	0.891	2.43 (0.68–8.61)	0.170	1.97 (0.69–5.58)	0.204
Trials	0.78 (0.32–1.88)	0.581	1.67 (0.49–5.56)	0.414	1.33 (0.48–3.68)	0.588
Year of publication	1.30 (1.02–1.65)	0.037	1.40 (1.03–1.92)	0.034	1.34 (1.00–1.80)	0.050
Source of funding
Industry	1		1		Not in model
Government or private	0.77 (0.36–1.64)	0.497	0.72 (0.26–1.99)	0.532	Not in model
Sample size
Small (n = 0–60)	1		1		Not in model
Large (n > 60)	1.01 (0.51–2.01)	0.967	1.27 (0.58–2.79)	0.549	Not in model
Region
North America	1		1		1
Europe	0.22 (0.08–0.62)	0.004	0.19 (0.08–0.48)	< 0.001	0.22 (0.10–0.49)	< 0.001
Other	0.05 (0.03–0.09)	< 0.001	0.05 (0.01–0.18)	< 0.001	0.04 (0.01–0.15)	< 0.001
Intervention type
Non-pharmacological	1		1		Not in model
Pharmacological	1.01 (0.41–2.49)	0.977	0.79 (0.27–2.36)	0.396	Not in model
Feasibility outcomes
Yes	1		1		Not in model
No	0.59 (0.31–1.11)	0.100	0.95 (0.43–2.10)	0.862	Not in model
AIC	Not applicable		0.933		0.880

PAFS Pilot and Feasibility Studies, BMJ British Medical Journal, OR unadjusted odds ratio, aOR adjusted odds ratio, AIC Akaike’s information criterion

ISSN: 2055-5784