Table 2

Characteristics of progression criteria reported in external randomised pilot trial publications

Completed (n=37)
n (%)
Protocol (n=123)
n (%)
Total (n=160)
n (%)
Feasibility outcomes informing progression criteria
 All14 (38)39 (32)53 (33)
 Some22 (59)77 (63)99 (62)
 None1 (3)2 (2)3 (2)
 Unclear*0 (0)5 (4)5 (3)
Reported process for establishing progression criteria
Who decided on progression criteria
 Reported4 (11)8 (6)12 (8)
 Not reported33 (89)115 (94)148 (93)
Rationale for progression criteria
 Reported for all progression criteria8 (22)20 (16)28 (18)
 Reported for some criteria only4 (11)12 (10)16 (10)
 Not reported25 (68)91 (74)116 (73)
Progression criteria format
Research method informing progression criteria
 Quantitative32 (86)93 (76)125 (78)
 Quantitative and qualitative (mixed methods)5 (14)29 (24)34 (21)
 Unclear0 (0)1 (1)1 (1)
Qualitative research contribution
 Informs progression criteria5 (14)29 (24)34 (21)
 Does not inform progression criteria14 (38)60 (49)74 (46)
 Qualitative research methodology not used18 (49)34 (28)52 (33)
Quantitative progression criteria target format
 Distinct threshold34 (92)99 (80)133 (83)
 Traffic light system2 (5)18 (15)20 (13)
 Other1 (3)6 (5)7 (4)
Reported process for assessing progression criteria to inform the progression decision
Process for progression decision-making
 Reported16 (43)58 (47)74 (46)
 Not reported21 (57)65 (53)86 (54)
Who is involved in assessing progression criteria
 Reported5 (14)30 (24)35 (22)
 Not reported32 (86)93 (76)125 (78)
Peer reviewer reports
Progression criteria mentioned in peer reviewer report
Yes19 (51)67 (54)86 (54)
Peer review comment theme
  Progression criteria were not specified 6 (32) 29 (44) 35 (41)
  Unclear whether progression criteria were specified 1 (5) 4 (6) 5 (6)
  Progression criteria rationale or justification query 5 (26) 15 (22) 20 (23)
  Other 7 (37) 19 (29) 26 (30)
No15 (41)52 (42)67 (42)
Peer reviewer report unavailable3 (8)4 (3)7 (4)
  • Percentages may not sum up to 100 due to rounding.

  • *Feasibility uncertainties are not completely defined in the objectives and outcomes; key methodological uncertainties have been identified from those stipulated in the progression criteria.