Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24022796›Full record

Trial reportIntensive care medicine2013

Physicians declining patient enrollment in a critical care trial: a case study in thromboprophylaxis.

D Cook, Y Arabi, N Ferguson, D Heels-Ansdell, A Freitag, E McDonald, F Clarke, S Keenan, G Pagliarello, W Plaxton and 19 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Intensive care medicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02719418 (Study of the Bioaccumulation of Tinzaparin in Renally Impaired Patients When Given at Prophylactic Doses), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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.

NCT02719418 completednot on this mapstarted 2016, after this paper: background citation

Study of the Bioaccumulation of Tinzaparin in Renally Impaired Patients When Given at Prophylactic Doses

TypeobservationalSponsorMaisonneuve-Rosemont HospitalRan2016 to 2018Enrolled28ConditionsRenal Insufficiency, Chronic, Deep Venous Thrombosis, Protection AgainstArmsTinzaparin
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Pilot and feasibility studies · 2015
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

29 authors at 11 institutions in 4 countries.

D Cook
Y Arabi
N Ferguson
D Heels-Ansdell
A Freitag
E McDonald
F Clarke
S Keenan
G Pagliarello
W Plaxton
M Herridge
T Karachi
S Vallance
J Cade
T Crozier
S Alves da Silva
R Costa Filho
N Brandao
I Watpool
T McArdle
G Hollinger
Y Mandourah
M Al-Hazmi
N Zytaruk
N K J Adhikari
PROTECT Research Coordinators
PROTECT Investigators
Canadian Critical Care Trials Group
Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Clinical Trials Group
University of Toronto · CAMcMaster University · CAUniversity of Ottawa · CAMonash Medical Centre · AUNational Guard Health Affairs · SARiyadh Armed Forces Hospital · SAThe Royal Melbourne Hospital · AUUniversidade Federal de Ciências da Saúde de Porto Alegre · BRUniversity of British Columbia · CAGrand River Hospital · CAGuelph General Hospital · CA

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo analyze the frequency, rationale and determinants of attending physicians requesting that their eligible patients not be approached for participation in a thromboprophylaxis trial.

methodsResearch personnel in 67 centers prospectively documented eligible non-randomized patients due to physicians declining to allow their patients to be approached.

resultsIn 67 centers, 3,764 patients were enrolled, but 1,460 eligible patients had no consent encounter. For 218 (14.9 %) of these, attending physicians requested that their patients not be approached. The most common reasons included a high risk of bleeding (31.2 %) related to fear of heparin bioaccumulation in renal failure, the presence of an epidural catheter, peri-operative status or other factors; specific preferences for thromboprophylaxis (12.4 %); morbid obesity (9.6 %); uncertain prognosis (6.4 %); general discomfort with research (3.7 %) and unclear reasons (17.0 %). Physicians were more likely to decline when approached by less experienced research personnel; considering those with[10 years of experience as the reference category, the odds ratios (OR) for physician refusals to personnel without trial experience was 10.47 [95 % confidence interval (CI) 2.19-50.02] and those with less than 10 years experience was 1.72 (95 % CI 0.61-4.84). Physicians in open rather than closed units were more likely to decline (OR 4.26; 95 % CI 1.27-14.34). Refusals decreased each year of enrollment compared to the pilot phase.

conclusionsTracking, analyzing, interpreting and reporting the rates and reasons for physicians declining to allow their patients to be approached for enrollment provides insights into clinicians' concerns and attitudes to trials. This information can encourage physician communication and education, and potentially enhance efficient recruitment.

Indexed as

Critical CareDalteparinDouble-Blind MethodFibrinolytic AgentsHeparinHumansInformed ConsentIntensive Care UnitsPatient ParticipationPatient SelectionPhysiciansPractice Patterns, Physicians'Prospective StudiesRefusal to ParticipateThrombosisDalteparinFibrinolytic AgentsHeparin

Identifiers

PMID24022796
OpenAlexW1968265383

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.