Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17391510›Full record

Trial reportBMC medical research methodology2007

Recruitment and retention in a multicentre randomised controlled trial in Bell's palsy: a case study.

Brian McKinstry, Victoria Hammersley, Fergus Daly, Frank Sullivan

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC medical research methodology, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Primary care perspectives on implementation of clinical trial recruitment.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2020
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Brian McKinstryCommunity Health Sciences, University of Edinburgh, 20 W Richmond Street, Edinburgh, UK. brian.mckinstry@ed.ac.uk
Victoria Hammersley
Fergus Daly
Frank Sullivan
University of Dundee · GBUniversity of Edinburgh · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIt is notoriously difficult to recruit patients to randomised controlled trials in primary care. This is particularly true when the disease process under investigation occurs relatively infrequently and must be investigated during a brief time window. Bell's palsy, an acute unilateral paralysis of the facial nerve is just such a relatively rare condition. In this case study we describe the organisational issues presented in setting up a large randomised controlled trial of the management of Bell's palsy across primary and secondary care in Scotland and how we managed to successfully recruit and retain patients presenting in the community.

methodsWhere possible we used existing evidence on recruitment strategies to maximise recruitment and retention. We consider that the key issues in the success of this study were; the fact that the research was seen as clinically important by the clinicians who had initial responsibility for recruitment; employing an experienced trial co-ordinator and dedicated researchers willing to recruit participants seven days per week and to visit them at home at a time convenient to them, hence reducing missed patients and ensuring they were retained in the study; national visibility and repeated publicity at a local level delivered by locally based principal investigators well known to their primary care community; encouraging recruitment by payment to practices and reducing the workload of the referring doctors by providing immediate access to specialist care; good collaboration between primary and secondary care and basing local investigators in the otolarnygology trial centres

resultsAlthough the recruitment rate did not meet our initial expectations, enhanced retention meant that we exceeded our planned target of recruiting 550 patients within the planned time-scale.

conclusionWhile difficult, recruitment to and retention within multi-centre trials from primary care can be successfully achieved through the application of the best available evidence, establishing good relationships with practices, minimising the workload of those involved in recruitment and offering enhanced care to all participants. Primary care trialists should describe their experiences of the methods used to persuade patients to participate in their trials when publishing their results.

Indexed as

Patient SelectionBell PalsyFacial ExpressionFacial NerveHumansMass MediaMulticenter Studies as TopicPublicationsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch Design

Identifiers

PMID17391510
PMCPMC1847527
OpenAlexW2005914949

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.