ReviewPloS one2012
Making co-enrolment feasible for randomised controlled trials in paediatric intensive care.
Review in PloS one, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised trials.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Central venous catheter-related thrombosis and thromboprophylaxis in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of thrombosis and haemostasis : JTH · 2014Pooled it
- Two speeds of increasing milk feeds for very preterm or very low-birthweight infants: the SIFT RCT.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2020Trial
- Coenrollment of critically ill patients in PROSPECT: A protocol and statistical analysis plan.PloS one · 2026Article
- Co-enrolment to UK Critical Care Studies - A 2019 update.Journal of the Intensive Care Society · 2022Article
- COVID-19 trial co-enrolment and subsequent enrolment.Lancet (London, England) · 2020Article
- Patient and caregiver engagement in research: factors that influence co-enrollment in research.Pediatric rheumatology online journal · 2019Article
- Burden or Opportunity? Parent Experiences When Approached for Research in a Pediatric Intensive Care Unit.Ethics & human research · 2019Article
- Co-enrolment of Participants into Multiple Cancer Trials: Benefits and Challenges.Clinical oncology (Royal College of Radiologists (Great Britain)) · 2017Review
- Ethics of drug research in the pediatric intensive care unit.Paediatric drugs · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
aimsEnrolling children into several trials could increase recruitment and lead to quicker delivery of optimal care in paediatric intensive care units (PICU). We evaluated decisions taken by clinicians and parents in PICU on co-enrolment for two large pragmatic trials: the CATCH trial (CATheters in CHildren) comparing impregnated with standard central venous catheters (CVCs) for reducing bloodstream infection in PICU and the CHIP trial comparing tight versus standard control of hyperglycaemia.
methodsWe recorded the period of trial overlap for all PICUs taking part in both CATCH and CHiP and reasons why clinicians decided to co-enrol children or not into both studies. We examined parental decisions on co-enrolment by measuring recruitment rates and reasons for declining consent.
resultsFive PICUs recruited for CATCH and CHiP during the same period (an additional four opened CATCH after having closed CHiP). Of these five, three declined co-enrolment (one of which delayed recruiting elective patients for CATCH whilst CHiP was running), due to concerns about jeopardising CHiP recruitment, asking too much of parents, overwhelming amounts of information to explain to parents for two trials and a policy against co-enrolment. Two units co-enrolled in order to maximise recruitment to both trials. At the first unit, 35 parents were approached for both trials. 17/35 consented to both; 13/35 consented to one trial only; 5/35 declined both. Consent rates during co-enrolment were 29/35 (82%) and 18/35 (51%) for CATCH and CHiP respectively compared with 78% and 51% respectively for those approached for a single trial within this PICU. The second unit did not record data on approaches or refusals, but successfully co-enrolled one child.
conclusionsCo-enrolment did not appear to jeopardise recruitment or overwhelm parents. Strategies for seeking consent for multiple trials need to be developed and should include how to combine information for parents and patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.