Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17443634›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2007

Strategies to improve recruitment to research studies.

J Mapstone, D Elbourne, I Roberts

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 102 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
102citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

102 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised trials.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised trials.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

42 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

J MapstoneCastle Point and Rochford NHS Primary Care Trust, 12 Castle Road, Rayleigh, Essex, UK, SS6 7QF. James.Mapstone@cpr-pct.nhs.uk
D Elbourne
I Roberts

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundResearch studies are essential to improving healthcare. However, many fail to recruit their planned number of participants. There are many interventions that researchers try to improve recruitment. Finding which ones are effective would be of benefit to the research community and society.

objectivesTo quantify the effects of strategies to improve participation in research studies. SEARCH STRATEGY: We aimed to find all randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials of strategies to improve recruitment to research studies. We searched nine electronic databases and manually searched the reference lists of relevant trials. We assessed the eligibility of each trial using pre-defined criteria. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials of methods to increase recruitment in research studies. This includes non-healthcare studies. Studies that required only questionnaire completion were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data on the method evaluated, nature of the population, nature of the study to be recruited into, randomisation or quasi-randomisation method, allocation concealment, numbers and proportions in each arm. We used risk ratios and their 95% confidence intervals to describe the effects in individual trials, and assessed heterogeneity of these ratios between trials. MAIN

resultsWe identified 15 eligible trials, including a total of 33,719 participants. All strategies were aimed at participants for healthcare studies. No strategies were identified at the level of researcher collaborators or ethics committees. Because of heterogeneity between trials and within strategies, the results were not synthesised. Trials of monetary incentives, an additional questionnaire at invitation and treatment information on the consent form demonstrated benefit; these specific interventions from individual trials are not easily generalizable. AUTHORS'

conclusionsOn this evidence, it is not possible to predict the effect most interventions will have on recruitment. Funders and researchers should ensure that the evaluation of recruitment strategies are incorporated into research studies.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicPatient SelectionHumansPatient Education as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSample Size

Identifiers

PMID17443634

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.