SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2013
Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 139 papers, 19 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
139 citing papers in PubMed, 19 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised trials.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2026Pooled it
- Study Design Complexity and Participant Completion in Dietary Trials for Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review and Metaresearch Study.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2026Pooled it
- The Continuous Fragility Index of Statistically Significant Findings in Studies Based on High Levels of Evidence Comparing Interventions for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome.The American journal of sports medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Assessing the Effectiveness of Digital Health Behavior Strategies on Type 2 Diabetes Management: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Mapping the Landscape of Digital Health Intervention Strategies: 25-Year Synthesis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Do recruitment SWAT interventions have an impact on participant retention in randomised controlled trials? A systematic review.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2024Pooled it
- Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Non-randomised evaluations of strategies to increase participant retention in randomised controlled trials: a systematic review.Systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Assessing effective interventions to improve trial retention: do they contain behaviour change techniques?Trials · 2020Pooled it
- The research burden of randomized controlled trial participation: a systematic thematic synthesis of qualitative evidence.BMC medicine · 2020Pooled it
- A systematic review of the efficiency of recruitment to stroke rehabilitation randomised controlled trials.Trials · 2020Pooled it
- Computed tomography for diagnosis of acute appendicitis in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Retention of Ethnic Participants in Longitudinal Studies.Journal of immigrant and minority health · 2018Pooled it
- Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised trials.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Identifying additional studies for a systematic review of retention strategies in randomised controlled trials: making contact with trials units and trial methodologists.Systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Updated systematic review identifies substantial number of retention strategies: using more strategies retains more study participants.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2015Pooled it
- Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials: a Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ open · 2014Pooled it
- Feasibility of a Virtual Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction Intervention for Individuals With Chronic Pain: Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR formative research · 2026Trial
79 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLoss to follow-up from randomised trials can introduce bias and reduce study power, affecting the generalisability, validity and reliability of results. Many strategies are used to reduce loss to follow-up and improve retention but few have been formally evaluated.
objectivesTo quantify the effect of strategies to improve retention on the proportion of participants retained in randomised trials and to investigate if the effect varied by trial strategy and trial setting. SEARCH
methodsWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, PreMEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, DARE, CINAHL, Campbell Collaboration's Social, Psychological, Educational and Criminological Trials Register, and ERIC. We handsearched conference proceedings and publication reference lists for eligible retention trials. We also surveyed all UK Clinical Trials Units to identify further studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included eligible retention trials of randomised or quasi-randomised evaluations of strategies to increase retention that were embedded in 'host' randomised trials from all disease areas and healthcare settings. We excluded studies aiming to increase treatment compliance. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We contacted authors to supplement or confirm data that we had extracted. For retention trials, we recorded data on the method of randomisation, type of strategy evaluated, comparator, primary outcome, planned sample size, numbers randomised and numbers retained. We used risk ratios (RR) to evaluate the effectiveness of the addition of strategies to improve retention. We assessed heterogeneity between trials using the Chi(2) and I(2) statistics. For main trials that hosted retention trials, we extracted data on disease area, intervention, population, healthcare setting, sequence generation and allocation concealment. MAIN
resultsWe identified 38 eligible retention trials. Included trials evaluated six broad types of strategies to improve retention. These were incentives, communication strategies, new questionnaire format, participant case management, behavioural and methodological interventions. For 34 of the included trials, retention was response to postal and electronic questionnaires with or without medical test kits. For four trials, retention was the number of participants remaining in the trial. Included trials were conducted across a spectrum of disease areas, countries, healthcare and community settings. Strategies that improved trial retention were addition of monetary incentives compared with no incentive for return of trial-related postal questionnaires (RR 1.18; 95% CI 1.09 to 1.28, P value < 0.0001), addition of an offer of monetary incentive compared with no offer for return of electronic questionnaires (RR 1.25; 95% CI 1.14 to 1.38, P value < 0.00001) and an offer of a GBP20 voucher compared with GBP10 for return of postal questionnaires and biomedical test kits (RR 1.12; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.22, P value < 0.005). The evidence that shorter questionnaires are better than longer questionnaires was unclear (RR 1.04; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.08, P value = 0.07) and the evidence for questionnaires relevant to the disease/condition was also unclear (RR 1.07; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.14). Although each was based on the results of a single trial, recorded delivery of questionnaires seemed to be more effective than telephone reminders (RR 2.08; 95% CI 1.11 to 3.87, P value = 0.02) and a 'package' of postal communication strategies with reminder letters appeared to be better than standard procedures (RR 1.43; 95% CI 1.22 to 1.67, P value < 0.0001). An open trial design also appeared more effective than a blind trial design for return of questionnaires in one fracture prevention trial (RR 1.37; 95% CI 1.16 to 1.63, P value = 0.0003).There was no good evidence that the addition of a non-monetary incentive, an offer of a non-monetary incentive, 'enhanced' letters, letters delivered by priority post, additional reminders, or questionnaire question order either increased or decreased trial questionnaire response/retention. There was also no evidence that a telephone survey was either more or less effective than a monetary incentive and a questionnaire. As our analyses are based on single trials, the effect on questionnaire response of using offers of charity donations, sending reminders to trial sites and when a questionnaire is sent, may need further evaluation. Case management and behavioural strategies used for trial retention may also warrant further evaluation. AUTHORS'
conclusionsMost of the retention trials that we identified evaluated questionnaire response. There were few evaluations of ways to improve participants returning to trial sites for trial follow-up. Monetary incentives and offers of monetary incentives increased postal and electronic questionnaire response. Some other strategies evaluated in single trials looked promising but need further evaluation. Application of the findings of this review would depend on trial setting, population, disease area, data collection and follow-up procedures.
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.