BACKGROUND/AIMS:Existing regulatory and ethical guidance does not address real-life complexities in how clinical trial participants' level of participation may change. If these complexities are inappropriately managed, there may be negative consequences for trial participants and the integrity of trials they participate in. These concerns have been highlighted over many years, but there remains no single, comprehensive guidance for managing participation changes in ways that address real-life complexities while maximally promoting participant interests and trial integrity. Motivated by the lack of agreed standards, and observed variability in practice, representatives from academic clinical trials units and linked organisations in the United Kingdom initiated the PeRSEVERE project (PRincipleS for handling end-of-participation EVEnts in clinical trials REsearch) to agree on guiding principles and explore how these principles should be implemented. METHODS:We developed the PeRSEVERE principles through discussion and debate within a large, multidisciplinary collaboration, including research professionals and public contributors. We took an inclusive approach to drafting the principles, incorporating new ideas if they were within project scope. Our draft principles were scrutinised through an international consultation survey which focussed on the principles' clarity, feasibility, novelty and acceptability. Survey responses were analysed descriptively (for category questions) and using a combination of deductive and inductive analysis (for open questions). We used predefined rules to guide feedback handling. After finalising the principles, we developed accompanying implementation guidance from several sources. RESULTS:In total, 280 people from 9 countries took part in the consultation survey. Feedback showed strong support for the principles with 96% of respondents agreeing with the principles' key messages. Based on our predefined rules, it was not necessary to amend our draft principles, but comments were nonetheless used to enhance the final project outputs. Our 17 finalised principles comprise 7 fundamental, 'overarching' principles, 6 about trial design and setup, 2 covering data collection and monitoring, and 2 on trial analysis and reporting. CONCLUSION:We devised a comprehensive set of guiding principles, with detailed practical recommendations, to aid the management of clinical trial participation changes, building on existing ethical and regulatory texts. Our outputs reflect the contributions of a substantial number of individuals, including public contributors and research professionals with various specialisms. This lends weight to our recommendations, which have implications for everyone who designs, funds, conducts, oversees or participates in trials. We suggest our principles could lead to improved standards in clinical trials and better experiences for participants. We encourage others to build on our work to explore the application of these ideas in other settings and to generate empirical evidence to support best practice in this area.

BACKGROUND:Use of electronic methods to support informed consent ('eConsent') is increasingly popular in clinical research. This commentary reports the approach taken to implement electronic consent methods and subsequent experiences from a range of studies at the Leeds Clinical Trials Research Unit (CTRU), a large clinical trials unit in the UK.MAIN TEXT:We implemented a remote eConsent process using the REDCap platform. The process can be used in trials of investigational medicinal products and other intervention types or research designs. Our standard eConsent system focuses on documenting informed consent, with other aspects of consent (e.g. providing information to potential participants and a recruiter discussing the study with each potential participant) occurring outside the system, though trial teams can use electronic methods for these activities where they have ethical approval. Our overall process includes a verbal consent step prior to confidential information being entered onto REDCap and an identity verification step in line with regulator guidance. We considered the regulatory requirements around the system's generation of source documents, how to ensure data protection standards were upheld and how to monitor informed consent within the system. We present four eConsent case studies from the CTRU: two randomised clinical trials and two other health research studies. These illustrate the ways eConsent can be implemented, and lessons learned, including about differences in uptake.CONCLUSIONS:We successfully implemented a remote eConsent process at the CTRU across multiple studies. Our case studies highlight benefits of study participants being able to give consent without having to be present at the study site. This may better align with patient preferences and trial site needs and therefore improve recruitment and resilience against external shocks (such as pandemics). Variation in uptake of eConsent may be influenced more by site-level factors than patient preferences, which may not align well with the aspiration towards patient-centred research. Our current process has some limitations, including the provision of all consent-related text in more than one language, and scalability of implementing more than one consent form version at a time. We consider how enhancements in CTRU processes, or external developments, might affect our approach.

BACKGROUND:Research study participants can stop taking part early, in various circumstances. Sometimes this experience can be stressful. Providing participants with the information they want or need when they stop could improve participants' experiences, and may benefit individual studies' objectives and research in general. A group of public contributors and researchers at the Clinical Trials Research Unit, University of Leeds, aimed to develop a communication template and researcher guidance. This would address how to provide information sensitively around the time when participants stop or significantly reduce their level of participation.METHODS:The project lead used scoping review methods to identify relevant prior evidence and derive a list of potential information topics to communicate to participants who stop taking part. The topic list was reviewed by research professionals and public contributors before finalisation. Further public contributors were identified from a range of networks. The contributors formed a 'development group', to work on the detail of the planned resources, and a larger 'review group' to review the draft output before finalisation. The involvement was planned so that the development group could shape the direction and pace of the work.RESULTS:The literature review identified 413 relevant reports, resulting in 94 information topics. The review suggested that this issue has not been well explored previously. Some evidence suggested early-stopping participants are sometimes excluded from important communications (such as study results) without clear justification. The development group agreed early to focus on guidance with reusable examples rather than a template. We took time to explore different perspectives and made decisions by informal consensus. Review group feedback was broadly positive but highlighted the need to improve resource navigability, leading to its final online form.CONCLUSIONS:We co-developed a resource to provide support to research participants who stop taking part. A strength of this work is that several of the public contributors have direct lived experience of stopping research participation. We encourage others to review the resource and consider how they support these participants in their studies. Our work highlights the value of researchers and participants working together, including on complex and ethically challenging topics.

BACKGROUND:Giving information to trial participants who stop taking part could support them through what can be a difficult process. We previously developed guidance around the ethical acceptability of such information provision, and about how trialists can develop suitable communication materials. There is limited evidence about what research ethics committees think of this issue, and limited guidance about what level of oversight they should have over the proposed communications, or post-consent participant communications generally. We conducted a survey of UK ethics committee members to address these points. METHODS:The survey was co-developed by public contributors and trialists who had previously worked together on the communications guidance. We asked respondents if they agreed with the general idea of informing participants who stop taking part, if they had ever been requested to review similar communications, and what level of ethics committee review they might recommend. The survey was primarily conducted online. It was reviewed by three ethics committee members before finalisation and shared directly with all UK ethics committee members. We analysed quantitative questions descriptively and used inductive analysis for open questions to identify common themes. RESULTS:Ninety-one ethics committee members participated (nearly 10% of all UK members). The sample was similar to reported data about all members in terms of several personal characteristics. Most respondents (83%) agreed with our project's rationale. Only 23% of respondents reported having been asked to review an end-of-participation information sheet before. Respondents gave various answers about the level of ethics committee review required, but most supported a relatively proportionate review process. Common concerns were about the risk of coercion or making participants feel pressured. CONCLUSIONS:Our survey suggests that ethics committee members generally support providing information to trial participants who stop taking part, if risks to participants are mitigated. We believe our guidance already addresses the main concerns raised. Our respondents' lack of prior experience with end-of-participation information sheets suggests that participants are not getting information they want or need when they stop participating. Our results help clarify how ethics committee should oversee post-consent participant communications, but further guidance from research regulators could be helpful.

Background/Aims Sharing trial results with participants is an ethical imperative but often does not happen. Show RESPECT (ISRCTN96189403) tested ways of sharing results with participants in an ovarian cancer trial (ISRCTN10356387). Sharing results via a printed summary improved patient satisfaction. Little is known about staff experience and the costs of communicating results with participants. We report the costs of communication approaches used in Show RESPECT and the views of site staff on these approaches. Methods We allocated 43 hospitals (sites) to share results with trial participants through one of eight intervention combinations (2 × 2 × 2 factorial; enhanced versus basic webpage, printed summary versus no printed summary, email list invitation versus no invitation). Questionnaires elicited data from staff involved in sharing results. Open- and closed-ended questions covered resources used to share results and site staff perspectives on the approaches used. Semi-structured interviews were conducted. Interview and free-text data were analysed thematically. The mean additional site costs per participant from each intervention were estimated jointly as main effects by linear regression. Results We received questionnaires from 68 staff from 41 sites and interviewed 11 site staff. Sites allocated to the printed summary had mean total site costs of sharing results £13.71/patient higher (95% confidence interval (CI): −3.19, 30.60; p = 0.108) than sites allocated no printed summary. Sites allocated to the enhanced webpage had mean total site costs £1.91/patient higher (95% CI: −14, 18.74; p = 0.819) than sites allocated to the basic webpage. Sites allocated to the email list had costs £2.87/patient lower (95% CI: −19.70, 13.95; p = 0.731) than sites allocated to no email list. Most of these costs were staff time for mailing information and handling patients’ queries. Most site staff reported no concerns about how they had shared results (88%) and no challenges (76%). Most (83%) found it easy to answer queries from patients about the results and thought the way they were allocated to share results with participants would be an acceptable standard approach (76%), with 79% saying they would follow the same approach for future trials. There were no significant effects of the randomised interventions on these outcomes. Site staff emphasised the importance of preparing patients to receive the results, including giving opt-in/opt-out options, and the need to offer further support, particularly if the results could confuse or distress some patients. Conclusions Adding a printed summary to a webpage (which significantly improved participant satisfaction) may increase costs to sites by ~£14/patient, which is modest in relation to the cost of trials. The Show RESPECT communication interventions were feasible to implement. This information could help future trials ensure they have sufficient resources to share results with participants.

Background Addressing recruitment and retention challenges in trials is a key priority for methods research, but navigating the literature is difficult and time-consuming. In 2016, ORRCA ( www.orrca.org.uk ) launched a free, searchable database of recruitment research that has been widely accessed and used to support the update of systematic reviews and the selection of recruitment strategies for clinical trials. ORRCA2 aims to create a similar database to map the growing volume and importance of retention research. Methods Searches of Medline (Ovid), CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection and the Cochrane Library, restricted to English language and publications up to the end of 2017. Hand searches of key systematic reviews were undertaken and randomised evaluations of recruitment interventions within the ORRCA database on 1 October 2020 were also reviewed for any secondary retention outcomes. Records were screened by title and abstract before obtaining the full text of potentially relevant articles. Studies reporting or evaluating strategies, methods and study designs to improve retention within healthcare research were eligible. Case reports describing retention challenges or successes and studies evaluating participant reported reasons for withdrawal or losses were also included. Studies assessing adherence to treatments, attendance at appointments outside of research and statistical analysis methods for missing data were excluded. Eligible articles were categorised into one of the following evidence types: randomised evaluations, non-randomised evaluations, application of retention strategies without evaluation and observations of factors affecting retention. Articles were also mapped against a retention domain framework. Additional data were extracted on research outcomes, methods and host study context. Results Of the 72,904 abstracts screened, 4,364 full texts were obtained, and 1,167 articles were eligible. Of these, 165 (14%) were randomised evaluations, 99 (8%) non-randomised evaluations, 319 (27%) strategies without evaluation and 584 (50%) observations of factors affecting retention. Eighty-four percent (n = 979) of studies assessed the numbers of participants retained, 27% (n = 317) assessed demographic differences between retained and lost participants, while only 4% (n = 44) assessed the cost of retention strategies. The most frequently reported domains within the 165 studies categorised as ‘randomised evaluations of retention strategies’ were participant monetary incentives (32%), participant reminders and prompts (30%), questionnaire design (30%) and data collection location and method (26%). Conclusion ORRCA2 builds on the success of ORRCA extending the database to organise the growing volume of retention research. Less than 15% of articles were randomised evaluations of retention strategies. Mapping of the literature highlights several areas for future research such as the role of research sites, clinical staff and study design in enhancing retention. Future studies should also include cost–benefit analysis of retention strategies.

BackgroundSharing trial results with participants is an ethical imperative but often does not happen. We tested an Enhanced Webpage versus a Basic Webpage, Mailed Printed Summary versus no Mailed Printed Summary, and Email List Invitation versus no Email List Invitation to see which approach resulted in the highest patient satisfaction with how the results were communicated.Methods and findingsWe carried out a cluster randomised, 2 by 2 by 2 factorial, nonblinded study within a trial, with semistructured qualitative interviews with some patients (ISRCTN96189403). Each cluster was a UK hospital participating in the ICON8 ovarian cancer trial. Interventions were shared with 384 ICON8 participants who were alive and considered well enough to be contacted, at 43 hospitals. Hospitals were allocated to share results with participants through one of the 8 intervention combinations based on random permutation within blocks of 8, stratified by number of participants. All interventions contained a written plain English summary of the results. The Enhanced Webpage also contained a short video. Both the Enhanced Webpage and Email contained links to further information and support. The Mailed Printed Summary was opt-out. Follow-up questionnaires were sent 1 month after patients had been offered the interventions. Patients' reported satisfaction was measured using a 5-point scale, analysed by ordinal logistic regression estimating main effects for all 3 interventions, with random effects for site, restricted to those who reported receiving the results and assuming no interaction. Data collection took place in 2018 to 2019. Questionnaires were sent to 275/384 randomly selected participants and returned by 180: 90/142 allocated Basic Webpage, 90/133 Enhanced Webpage; 91/141 no Mailed Printed Summary, 89/134 Mailed Printed Summary; 82/129 no Email List Invitation, 98/146 Email List Invitation. Only 3 patients opted out of receiving the Mailed Printed Summary; no patients signed up to the email list. Patients' satisfaction was greater at sites allocated the Mailed Printed Summary, where 65/81 (80%) were quite or very satisfied compared to sites with no Mailed Printed Summary 39/64 (61%), ordinal odds ratio (OR) = 3.15 (1.66 to 5.98, p < 0.001). We found no effect on patient satisfaction from the Enhanced Webpage, OR = 1.47 (0.78 to 2.76, p = 0.235) or Email List Invitation, OR = 1.38 (0.72 to 2.63, p = 0.327). Interviewees described the results as interesting, important, and disappointing (the ICON8 trial found no benefit). Finding out the results made some feel their trial participation had been more worthwhile. Regardless of allocated group, patients who received results generally reported that the information was easy to understand and find, were glad and did not regret finding out the results. The main limitation of our study is the 65% response rate.ConclusionsNearly all respondents wanted to know the results and were glad to receive them. Adding an opt-out Mailed Printed Summary alongside a webpage yielded the highest reported satisfaction. This study provides evidence on how to share results with other similar trial populations. Further research is needed to look at different results scenarios and patient populations.Trial registrationISRCTN: ISRCTN96189403.

Background/Aims It is increasingly recognised that reliance on frequent site visits for monitoring clinical trials is inefficient. Regulators and trialists have recently encouraged more risk-based monitoring. Risk assessment should take place before a trial begins to define the overarching monitoring strategy. It can also be done on an ongoing basis, to target sites for monitoring activity. Various methods have been proposed for such prioritisation, often using terms like ‘central statistical monitoring’, ‘triggered monitoring’ or, as in the International Conference on Harmonization Good Clinical Practice guidance, ‘targeted on-site monitoring’. We conducted a scoping review to identify such methods, to establish if any were supported by adequate evidence to allow wider implementation, and to guide future developments in this field of research. Methods We used seven publication databases, two sets of methodological conference abstracts and an Internet search engine to identify methods for using centrally held trial data to assess site conduct during a trial. We included only reports in English, and excluded reports published before 1996 or not directly relevant to our research question. We used reference and citation searches to find additional relevant reports. We extracted data using a predefined template. We contacted authors to request additional information about included reports. Results We included 30 reports in our final dataset, of which 21 were peer-reviewed publications. In all, 20 reports described central statistical monitoring methods (of which 7 focussed on detection of fraud or misconduct) and 9 described triggered monitoring methods; 21 reports included some assessment of their methods’ effectiveness, typically exploring the methods’ characteristics using real trial data without known integrity issues. Of the 21 with some effectiveness assessment, most contained limited information about whether or not concerns identified through central monitoring constituted meaningful problems. Several reports demonstrated good classification ability based on more than one classification statistic, but never without caveats of unclear reporting or other classification statistics being low or unavailable. Some reports commented on cost savings from reduced on-site monitoring, but none gave detailed costings for the development and maintenance of central monitoring methods themselves. Conclusion Our review identified various proposed methods, some of which could be combined within the same trial. The apparent emphasis on fraud detection may not be proportionate in all trial settings. Despite some promising evidence and some self-justifying benefits for data cleaning activity, many proposed methods have limitations that may currently prevent their routine use for targeting trial monitoring activity. The implementation costs, or uncertainty about these, may also be a barrier. We make recommendations for how the evidence-base supporting these methods could be improved.

BACKGROUND:Eligibility criteria are a fundamental element of clinical trial design, defining who can and who should not participate in a trial. Problems with the design or application of criteria are known to occur and pose risks to participants' safety and trial integrity, sometimes also negatively impacting on trial recruitment and generalisability. We conducted a short, exploratory survey to gather evidence on UK recruiters' experiences interpreting and applying eligibility criteria and their views on how criteria are communicated and developed. METHODS:Our survey included topics informed by a wider programme of work at the Clinical Trials Research Unit, University of Leeds, on assuring eligibility criteria quality. Respondents were asked to answer based on all their trial experience, not only on experiences with our trials. The survey was disseminated to recruiters collaborating on trials run at our trials unit, and via other mailing lists and social media. The quantitative responses were descriptively analysed, with inductive analysis of free-text responses to identify themes. RESULTS:A total of 823 eligible respondents participated. In total, 79% of respondents reported finding problems with eligibility criteria in some trials, and 9% in most trials. The main themes in the types of problems experienced were criteria clarity (67% of comments), feasibility (34%), and suitability (14%). In total, 27% of those reporting some level of problem said these problems had led to patients being incorrectly included in trials; 40% said they had led to incorrect exclusions. Most respondents (56%) reported accessing eligibility criteria mainly in the trial protocol. Most respondents (74%) supported the idea of recruiter review of eligibility criteria earlier in the protocol development process. CONCLUSIONS:Our survey corroborates other evidence about the existence of suboptimal trial eligibility criteria. Problems with clarity were the most often reported, but the number of comments on feasibility and suitability suggest some recruiters feel eligibility criteria and associated assessments can hinder recruitment to trials. Our proposal for more recruiter involvement in protocol development has strong support and some potential benefits, but questions remain about how best to implement this. We invite other trialists to consider our other suggestions for how to assure quality in trial eligibility criteria.

Background/Aims: Clinical trials should be designed and managed to minimise important errors with potential to compromise patient safety or data integrity, employ monitoring practices that detect and correct important errors quickly, and take robust action to prevent repetition. Regulators highlight the use of risk-based monitoring, making greater use of centralised monitoring and reducing reliance on centre visits. The TEMPER study was a prospective evaluation of triggered monitoring (a risk-based monitoring method), whereby centres are prioritised for visits based on central monitoring results. Conducted in three UK-based randomised cancer treatment trials of investigational medicine products with time-to-event outcomes, it found high levels of serious findings at triggered centre visits but also at visits to matched control centres that, based on central monitoring, were not of concern. Here, we report a detailed review of the serious findings from TEMPER centre visits. We sought to identify feasible, centralised processes which might detect or prevent these findings without a centre visit. Methods: The primary outcome of this study was the proportion of all 'major' and 'critical' TEMPER centre visit findings theoretically detectable or preventable through a feasible, centralised process. To devise processes, we considered a representative example of each finding type through an internal consensus exercise. This involved (a) agreeing the potential, by some described process, for each finding type to be centrally detected or prevented and (b) agreeing a proposed feasibility score for each proposed process. To further assess feasibility, we ran a consultation exercise, whereby the proposed processes were reviewed and rated for feasibility by invited external trialists. Results: In TEMPER, 312 major or critical findings were identified at 94 visits. These findings comprised 120 distinct issues, for which we proposed 56 different centralised processes. Following independent review of the feasibility of the proposed processes by 87 consultation respondents across eight different trial stakeholder groups, we conclude that 306/312 (98%) findings could theoretically be prevented or identified centrally. Of the processes deemed feasible, those relating to informed consent could have the most impact. Of processes not currently deemed feasible, those involving use of electronic health records are among those with the largest potential benefit. Conclusions: This work presents a best-case scenario, where a large majority of monitoring findings were deemed theoretically preventable or detectable by central processes. Caveats include the cost of applying all necessary methods, and the resource implications of enhanced central monitoring for both centre and trials unit staff. Our results will inform future monitoring plans and emphasise the importance of continued critical review of monitoring processes and outcomes to ensure they remain appropriate.

Objectives To examine reactions to the proposed improvements to standard Kaplan–Meier plots, the standard way to present time-to-event data, and to understand which (if any) facilitated better depiction of (1) the state of patients over time, and (2) uncertainty over time in the estimates of survival. Design A survey of stakeholders’ opinions on the proposals. Setting A web-based survey, open to international participation, for those with an interest in visualisation of time-to-event data. Participants 1174 people participated in the survey over a 6-week period. Participation was global (although primarily Europe and North America) and represented a wide range of researchers (primarily statisticians and clinicians). Main outcome measures Two outcome measures were of principal importance: (1) participants’ opinions of each proposal compared with a ‘standard’ Kaplan–Meier plot; and (2) participants’ overall ranking of the proposals (including the standard). Results Most proposals were more popular than the standard Kaplan–Meier plot. The most popular proposals in the two categories, respectively, were an extended table beneath the plot depicting the numbers at risk, censored and having experienced an event at periodic timepoints, and CIs around each Kaplan–Meier curve. Conclusions This study produced a high response number, reflecting the importance of graphics for time-to-event data. Those producing and publishing Kaplan–Meier plots—both authors and journals—should, as a starting point, consider using the combination of the two favoured proposals.

Monitoring and managing data returns in multi-centre randomised controlled trials is an important aspect of trial management. Maintaining consistently high data return rates has various benefits for trials, including enhancing oversight, improving reliability of central monitoring techniques and helping prepare for database lock and trial analyses. Despite this, there is little evidence to support best practice, and current standard methods may not be optimal. We report novel methods from the Trial of Imaging and Schedule in Seminoma Testis (TRISST), a UK-based, multi-centre, phase III trial using paper Case Report Forms to collect data over a 6-year follow-up period for 669 patients. Using an automated database report which summarises the data return rate overall and per centre, we developed a Microsoft Excel-based tool to allow observation of per-centre trends in data return rate over time. The tool allowed us to distinguish between forms that can and cannot be completed retrospectively, to inform understanding of issues at individual centres. We reviewed these statistics at regular trials unit team meetings. We notified centres whose data return rate appeared to be falling, even if they had not yet crossed the pre-defined acceptability threshold of an 80% data return rate. We developed a set method for agreeing targets for gradual improvement with centres having persistent data return problems. We formalised a detailed escalation policy to manage centres who failed to meet agreed targets. We conducted a post-hoc, descriptive analysis of the effectiveness of the new processes. The new processes were used from April 2015 to September 2016. By May 2016, data return rates were higher than they had been at any time previously, and there were no centres with return rates below 80%, which had never been the case before. In total, 10 centres out of 35 were contacted regarding falling data return rates. Six out of these 10 showed improved rates within 6–8 weeks, and the remainder within 4 months. Our results constitute preliminary effectiveness evidence for novel methods in monitoring and managing data return rates in randomised controlled trials. We encourage other researchers to work on generating better evidence-based methods in this area, whether through more robust evaluation of our methods or of others.

Background Triggered monitoring in clinical trials is a risk-based monitoring approach where triggers (centrally monitored, predefined key risk and performance indicators) drive the extent, timing, and frequency of monitoring visits. The TEMPER study used a prospective, matched-pair design to evaluate the use of a triggered monitoring strategy, comparing findings from triggered monitoring visits with those from matched control sites. To facilitate this study, we developed a bespoke risk-based monitoring system: the TEMPER Management System. Methods The TEMPER Management System comprises a web application (the front end), an SQL server database (the back end) to store the data generated for TEMPER, and a reporting function to aid users in study processes such as the selection of triggered sites. Triggers based on current practice were specified for three clinical trials and were implemented in the system. Trigger data were generated in the system using data extracted from the trial databases to inform the selection of triggered sites to visit. Matching of the chosen triggered sites with untriggered control sites was also performed in the system, while data entry screens facilitated the collection and management of the data from findings gathered at monitoring visits. Results There were 38 triggers specified for the participating trials. Using these, 42 triggered sites were chosen and matched with control sites. Monitoring visits were carried out to all sites, and visit findings were entered into the TEMPER Management System. Finally, data extracted from the system were used for analysis. Conclusions The TEMPER Management System made possible the completion of the TEMPER study. It implemented an approach of standardising the automation of current-practice triggers, and the generation of trigger data to inform the selection of triggered sites to visit. It also implemented a matching algorithm informing the selection of matched control sites. We hope that by publishing this paper it encourages other trialists to share their approaches to, and experiences of, triggered monitoring and other risk-based monitoring systems.

Background/aims: Clinical trial oversight is central to the safety of participants and production of robust data. The United Kingdom Medical Research Council originally set out an oversight structure comprising three committees in 1998. The first committee, led by the trial team, is hands-on with trial conduct/operations (‘Trial Management Group’) and essential. The second committee (Data Monitoring Committee), usually completely independent of the trial, reviews accumulating trial evidence and is used by most later phase trials. The Independent Data Monitoring Committee makes recommendations to the third oversight committee. The third committee, (‘Trial Steering Committee’), facilitates in-depth interactions of independent and non-independent trial members and gives broader oversight (blinded to comparative analysis). We investigated the roles and functioning of the third oversight committee with multiple research methods. We reflect upon these findings to standardise the committee’s remit and operation and to potentially increase its usage. Methods: We utilised findings from our recent published suite of research on the third oversight committee to inform guideline revision. In brief, we conducted a survey of 38 United Kingdom–registered Clinical Trials Units, reviewed a cohort of 264 published trials, observed 8 third oversight committee meetings and interviewed 52 trialists. We convened an expert panel to discuss third oversight committees. Subsequently, we interviewed nine patient/lay third committee members and eight committee Chairs. Results: In the survey, most Clinical Trials Units required a third committee for all their trials (27/38, 71%) with independent members (ranging from 1 to 6). In the survey and interviews, the independence of the third committee was valued to make unbiased consideration of Independent Data Monitoring Committee recommendations and to advise on trial progress, protocol changes and recruitment issues in conjunction with the trial leadership. The third committee also advised funders and sponsors about trial continuation and represented patients and the public by including lay members. Of the cohort of 264 published trials, 144 reported a ‘steering’ committee (55%), but the independence of these members was not described so these may have been internal Trial Management Groups. Around two thirds of papers (60%) reported having an Independent Data Monitoring Committee and 26.9% neither a steering nor an Independent Data Monitoring Committee. However, before revising the third committee charter (Terms of Reference), greater standardisation is needed around defining member independence, composition, primacy of decision-making, interactions with other committees and the lifespan. Conclusion: A third oversight committee has benefits for trial oversight and conduct, and a revised charter will facilitate greater standardisation and wider adoption.