Introduction:Pilot studies are meritorious for determining the feasibility of a definitive clinical trial in terms of conduct and potential for efficacy, but their possible applications for planning a future trial are not always fully realized. The purpose of this review was to estimate the extent to which pilot/feasibility studies: (i) addressed needed objectives; (ii) led to definitive trials; and (iii) whether the subsequent undertaking of a definitive trial was influenced by the strength of the evidence of outcome improvement.Methods:Trials published in the journal Clinical Rehabilitation, since its inception, were eligible if the word ‘pilot’ or ‘feasibility’ was specified somewhere in the article. A total of 191 studies were reviewed, results were summarized descriptively, and between-group effect sizes were computed.Results:The specific purposes of piloting were stated in only 58% (n = 110) of the studies. The most frequent purpose was to estimate the potential for efficacy (85%), followed by testing the feasibility of the intervention (60%). Only 12% of the studies were followed by a definitive trial; <4% of studies had a main study underway or a published study protocol. There was no relationship between observed effect size and follow-up of pilot studies, although the confidence intervals were very wide owing to small number of trials that followed on.Discussion:Labelling and reporting of pilot studies needs to be improved to be concordant with the recently issued CONSORT guidelines. Feasibility needs to be fully tested and demonstrated prior to committing considerable human and monetary resources.

Psychometric studies with strong methodological rigor are required in the future. Considering the fact that IADL decline has been associated with dementia, early detection of functional difficulties in MCI needs to be encouraged as it will allow suitable and timely interventions to prolong functional independence of affected individuals.

No abstract