Development of a standardised set of metrics for monitoring site performance in multicentre randomised trials: A Delphi study

Diane Whitham, Julie Turzanski, Lucy Bradshaw, Mike Clarke, Lucy Culliford, Lelia Duley, Lisa Shaw, Zoe Skea, Shaun P. Treweek, Kate Walker, Paula R. Williamson, Alan A. Montgomery*, Simon Bevan, Kathryn Fairbrother, Kirsteen Goodman, Catherine Hewitt, Rachel Hobson, Sarah Lawton, Stephen Lock, Alison McDonaldJohn Norrie, Alastair O'Brien, Sarah Pearson, Shelley Rhodes, Claire Snowdon, Kim Thomas, Jill Wood

*Corresponding author for this work

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    14 Citations (Scopus)


    Background: Site performance is key to the success of large multicentre randomised trials. A standardised set of clear and accessible summaries of site performance could facilitate the timely identification and resolution of potential problems, minimising their impact. The aim of this study was to identify and agree a core set of key performance metrics for managing multicentre randomised trials. Methods: We used a mixed methods approach to identify potential metrics and to achieve consensus about the final set, adapting methods that are recommended by the COMET Initiative for developing core outcome sets in health care. We used performance metrics identified from our systematic search and focus groups to create an online Delphi survey. We invited respondents to score each metric for inclusion in the final core set, over three survey rounds. Metrics scored as critical by ≥70% and unimportant by <15% of respondents were taken forward to a consensus meeting of representatives from key UK-based stakeholders. Participants in the consensus meeting discussed and voted on each metric, using anonymous electronic voting. Metrics with >50% of participants voting for inclusion were retained. Results: Round 1 of the Delphi survey presented 28 performance metrics, and a further six were added in round 2. Of 294 UK-based stakeholders who registered for the Delphi survey, 211 completed all three rounds. At the consensus meeting, 17 metrics were discussed and voted on: 15 metrics were retained following survey round 3, plus two others that were preferred by consensus meeting participants. Consensus was reached on a final core set of eight performance metrics in three domains: (1) recruitment and retention, (2) data quality and (3) protocol compliance. A simple tool for visual reporting of the metrics is available from the Nottingham Clinical Trials Unit website. Conclusions: We have established a core set of metrics for measuring the performance of sites in multicentre randomised trials. These metrics could improve trial conduct by enabling researchers to identify and address problems before trials are adversely affected. Future work could evaluate the effectiveness of using the metrics and reporting tool.

    Original languageEnglish
    Article number557
    Issue number1
    Publication statusPublished - 16 Oct 2018

    Bibliographical note

    Funding Information:
    This study was supported by an NIHR Clinical Trials Unit Support Funding grant for supporting efficient and innovative delivery of NIHR research. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the National Health Service, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. The Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, receives core funding from the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health Directorates. The study was not registered.

    Publisher Copyright:
    © 2018 The Author(s).


    • Consensus meeting
    • Delphi survey
    • Multicentre randomised trials
    • Performance metrics
    • Trial management


    Dive into the research topics of 'Development of a standardised set of metrics for monitoring site performance in multicentre randomised trials: A Delphi study'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this