ArticleBMJ open2013
Methods to improve recruitment to randomised controlled trials: Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 322 papers, 16 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.
Feasibility, User Experiences, and Preliminary Effectiveness of Conversation Cards for Adolescents, a Patient-centered Communication and Behavior Change Tool: a Pragmatic, Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial
Increasing Recruitment of Underrepresented Cancer Survivors With Awareness Enhancing Interventions
Who cites it
322 citing papers in PubMed, 16 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised trials.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2026Pooled it
- Registry-based randomised controlled trials: conduct, advantages and challenges-a systematic review.Trials · 2024Pooled it
- Factors related to willingness to participate in biomedical research on neglected tropical diseases: A systematic review.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2024Pooled it
- Can we achieve better trial recruitment by presenting patient information through multimedia? Meta-analysis of 'studies within a trial' (SWATs).BMC medicine · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Economic Evaluations of Digital Health Interventions for the Management of Musculoskeletal Disorders: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- The effectiveness of incentives for research participation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.PloS one · 2022Pooled it
- Facilitators and barriers of children's participation in nutrition, physical activity, and obesity interventions: A systematic review.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2021Pooled it
- Use of Video Education Interventions to Increase Racial and Ethnic Diversity in Cancer Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review.Worldviews on evidence-based nursing · 2021Pooled it
- Can we achieve better recruitment by providing better information? Meta-analysis of 'studies within a trial' (SWATs) of optimised participant information sheets.BMC medicine · 2021Pooled it
- A systematic review of the efficiency of recruitment to stroke rehabilitation randomised controlled trials.Trials · 2020Pooled it
- Recruitment strategies in randomised controlled trials of men aged 50 years and older: a systematic review.BMJ open · 2019Pooled it
- Randomized controlled trials comparing surgery to non-operative management in neurosurgery: a systematic review.Acta neurochirurgica · 2019Pooled it
- Barriers and enablers to patient recruitment for randomised controlled trials on treatment of chronic wounds: A systematic review.International wound journal · 2018Pooled it
- Impact of patient and public involvement on enrolment and retention in clinical trials: systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2018Pooled it
- Trial
- A community-based rehabilitation package following hip fracture: FEMuR III a multi-centre RCT, economic and process evaluation.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2025Trial
- Trial
- Effects of a non-standard information leaflet on patient recruitment in acute care: Embedded cluster-randomised controlled trial.PloS one · 2025Trial
262 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
unlabelledThis review is an abridged version of a Cochrane Review previously published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 4, Art. No.: MR000013 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub5 (see www.thecochranelibrary.com for information). Cochrane Reviews are regularly updated as new evidence emerges and in response to feedback, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews should be consulted for the most recent version of the review.
objectiveTo identify interventions designed to improve recruitment to randomised controlled trials, and to quantify their effect on trial participation.
designSystematic review. DATA SOURCES: The Cochrane Methodology Review Group Specialised Register in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, ERIC, Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, C2-SPECTR, the National Research Register and PubMed. Most searches were undertaken up to 2010; no language restrictions were applied. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials, including those recruiting to hypothetical studies. Studies on retention strategies, examining ways to increase questionnaire response or evaluating the use of incentives for clinicians were excluded. The study population included any potential trial participant (eg, patient, clinician and member of the public), or individual or group of individuals responsible for trial recruitment (eg, clinicians, researchers and recruitment sites). Two authors independently screened identified studies for eligibility.
results45 trials with over 43 000 participants were included. Some interventions were effective in increasing recruitment: telephone reminders to non-respondents (risk ratio (RR) 1.66, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.46; two studies, 1058 participants), use of opt-out rather than opt-in procedures for contacting potential participants (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.84; one study, 152 participants) and open designs where participants know which treatment they are receiving in the trial (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.36; two studies, 4833 participants). However, the effect of many other strategies is less clear, including the use of video to provide trial information and interventions aimed at recruiters.
conclusionsThere are promising strategies for increasing recruitment to trials, but some methods, such as open-trial designs and opt-out strategies, must be considered carefully as their use may also present methodological or ethical challenges. Questions remain as to the applicability of results originating from hypothetical trials, including those relating to the use of monetary incentives, and there is a clear knowledge gap with regard to effective strategies aimed at recruiters.
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.