Trial reportThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2006
Comparison of two recruitment strategies for patients with chronic shoulder complaints.
Trial report in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparing recruitment strategies in a study of acupuncture for chronic back pain.BMC medical research methodology · 2009Trial
- Manual therapy compared with physical therapy in patients with non-specific neck pain: a randomized controlled trial.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2017Article
- Article
- Comparing community and specialty provider-based recruitment in a randomized clinical trial: clinical trial in fecal incontinence.Research in nursing & health · 2010Article
- Costs of recruiting couples to a clinical trial.Contemporary clinical trials · 2007Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecruiting adequate numbers of participants represents a major problem to the completion of randomised clinical trials in primary care. Information on different recruitment strategies applied in one trial is scarce.
aimTo evaluate the application of two recruitment strategies in one trial. DESIGN OF STUDY: The study was performed within the framework of a randomised clinical trial on the effectiveness of a behavioural treatment for patients with chronic shoulder complaints.
settingThirty-two general practices in the Netherlands.
methodPatients recruited during a consultation with their GP for chronic shoulder complaints were compared with patients recruited by advertisement in a local newspaper as regards baseline characteristics, withdrawals (drop-outs and losses to follow-up) and post-treatment clinical outcomes.
resultsPatients recruited by the GPs (n = 83) were similar to those recruited by advertisement (n = 83) in terms of demographic characteristics and clinical outcome measures at baseline, but differed slightly in disease characteristics and treatment preferences. Recruitment strategy was not related to reasons for or numbers of withdrawals. Improvements on outcome measures were greater in patients recruited by the GPs, irrespective of allocated treatment. Results on the clinical effectiveness of treatments at the end of the treatment period or during follow-up were neither modified by recruitment strategy, nor by differences between the two strategy groups in patient characteristics found at baseline.
conclusionUsing two recruitment strategies did not influence the outcomes on clinical effectiveness in this trial.However, recruitment strategy should be considered as a putative modifying factor in the design of a study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
16464327PMC1828219W2110449409What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.