Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22155024›Full record

Trial reportContemporary clinical trials2012

Clinical trial implementation and recruitment: lessons learned from the early closure of a randomized clinical trial.

Marlene H Peters-Lawrence, Margaret C Bell, Lewis L Hsu, Ifeyinwa Osunkwo, Phillip Seaman, Miren Blackwood, Edouard Guillaume, Rita Bellevue, Lakshmanan Krishnamurti, Wally R Smith and 3 more

Abstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIIComparative StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in Contemporary clinical trials, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Challenges and Strategies: Nationwide Data Collection for an Internet-based Guided Relaxation Intervention in Sickle Cell Disease.Pain management nursing : official journal of the American Society of Pain Management Nurses · 2025
    Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Insights from the trial innovation network's initial consultation process.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2025
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

13 authors.

Marlene H Peters-LawrenceCardiovascular and Pulmonary Medicine Branch, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892, United States.
Margaret C Bell
Lewis L Hsu
Ifeyinwa Osunkwo
Phillip Seaman
Miren Blackwood
Edouard Guillaume
Rita Bellevue
Lakshmanan Krishnamurti
Wally R Smith
Carlton D Dampier
Caterina P Minniti
Sickle Cell Disease Clinical Research Network (SCDCRN)

Funding

INSTITUTIONAL CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCE AWARDUL1RR024134 · NCRR · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI FITZGERALD, GARRET A · 2006 to 2011
$70.4M
UNC CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCE AWARD: BPCAUL1RR025747 · NCRR · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI RUNGE, MARSCHALL S. · 2008 to 2011
$44.6M
WIRELESS CAPSULE ENDOSCOPY TO EVALUATE THE SMALL INTESTINE M01RR002172 · NCRR · CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL BOSTON · PI MANDELL, JAMES WILLIAM · 1985 to 2008
$16.0M
Data Coordinating Center for the Sickle Cell Disease Clinical Research NetworkU10HL083721 · NHLBI · NEW ENGLAND RESEARCH INSTITUTES, INC. · PI MCKINLAY, SONJA M · 2006 to 2008
$12.6M
CTSA INFRASTRUCTURE FOR PEDIATRIC RESEARCHUL1RR031988 · NCRR · CHILDREN'S RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI JOSEPH, JILL G · 2010 to 2011
$8.2M
Virginia Comprehensive Sickle Cell Center-Center: Basic & Translational ResearchU54HL090516 · NHLBI · VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY · PI SMITH, WALLY R · 2008 to 2011
$1.4M
Marian Anderson Sickle Cell Center-Sickle Cell Disease Clinical Research NetworkU10HL083705 · NHLBI · DREXEL UNIVERSITY · PI HSU, LEWIS LI-YEN · 2006 to 2008
$509k
Intramural NIH HHS Z99 HL999999NCRR NIH HHS M01 RR002172NCRR NIH HHS MO1-RR02172NCRR NIH HHS U54 RR026076NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR024134NCRR NIH HHS UL1-RR-024134NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR025747NCRR NIH HHS UL1RR025747NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR031988NCRR NIH HHS UL1RR031988NHLBI NIH HHS U10 HL083705NHLBI NIH HHS U10 HL083721NHLBI NIH HHS U10HL083721NHLBI NIH HHS U54 HL090516
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe NHLBI-sponsored Sickle Cell Disease Clinical Research Network (SCDCRN) conducted a multi-center, acute intervention randomized clinical trial of two methods of Patient Controlled Analgesia for acute pain. This trial was terminated early due to low enrollment. We analyzed the perceived barriers and recruitment difficulties as reported by the coordinators and principal investigators.

methodsParticipating sites completed a missed eligibility log of subjects admitted in pain crisis throughout the study and a survey at the end of the trial. The survey covered site-specific factors, policies, and procedures in study implementation, recruitment strategies, and eligibility factors. The New England Research Institutes (NERI) collected de-identified surveys from 31 respondents at 29 of 31 participating sites.

resultsFrom December 2009 to June 2010, 1116 patient encounters for SCD and pain occurred at participating institutions: 38 subjects were enrolled (14 pediatric and 24 adults) and 34 completed the trial, below the projected 278 subjects. Fourteen sites enrolled subjects and seventeen did not. Recruitment barriers included insufficient staff, subject ineligibility or in too much pain to consent, competing protocols, and concerns regarding pain control. Recruitment methods were referrals from urgent care, SCD clinics and in house databases. No use of media or outside physicians was reported.

conclusionWe identified multiple barriers to patient accrual including short duration of enrollment period, protocol design, complex dosing schedule, requirement for staff availability during week-end and after hours, multiple departments' involvement, protocol acceptance, eligibility criteria, competing protocols, and limited staff. Each of these areas should be targeted for intervention in order to plan and conduct successful future clinical trials.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelPatient SelectionAcute PainAdolescentAdultAnalgesia, Patient-ControlledAnemia, Sickle CellChildClinical ProtocolsFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleRetrospective StudiesSurveys and QuestionnairesTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID22155024
PMCPMC3577351

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.