Skip to main content

Table 3 Factors associated with using progression criteria

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

Variable Univariate model Multivariable model 1 Multivariable model 2
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
  1. PAFS Pilot and Feasibility Studies, BMJ British Medical Journal, OR unadjusted odds ratio, aOR adjusted odds ratio, AIC Akaike’s information criterion