Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26122922›Full record

Trial reportClinical trials (London, England)2015

Characteristics of participants consenting versus declining follow-up for up to 10 years in a randomized clinical trial.

Alice J Sheffet, Jenifer H Voeks, Ariane Mackey, William Brooks, Wayne M Clark, Michael D Hill, Virginia J Howard, Susan E Hughes, MeeLee Tom, Mary E Longbottom and 2 more

Open access · greenAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical trials (London, England), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. 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

12 authors at 9 institutions in 2 countries.

Alice J SheffetDepartment of Surgery, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Newark, NJ, USA.
Jenifer H VoeksDepartment of Neuroscience, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
Ariane MackeyDepartment of Neurology, CHU de Québec-Hôpital de l'Enfant Jésus, Québec City, QC, Canada.
William BrooksCentral Baptist Hospital, Lexington, KY, USA.
Wayne M ClarkDepartment of Neurology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA.
Michael D HillDepartment of Neurology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Virginia J HowardDepartment of Epidemiology, The University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Susan E HughesDepartment of Surgery, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Newark, NJ, USA.
MeeLee TomDepartment of Surgery, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Newark, NJ, USA.
Mary E LongbottomDepartment of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA.
Thomas G BrottDepartment of Surgery, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Newark, NJ, USA Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA brott.thomas@mayo.edu.
CREST Investigators
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey · USCentral Baptist Hospital · USHôpital de l'Enfant-Jésus · CAMayo Clinic in Florida · USMedical University of South Carolina · USOregon Health & Science University · USUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham · USUniversity of Calgary · CAWinnMed · US

Funding

Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy vs Stenting TrialR01NS038384 · NINDS · UNIV OF MED/DENT OF NJ-NJ MEDICAL SCHOOL · PI BROTT, THOMAS G · 1999 to 2010
$40.7M
Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy vs. Stenting Trial: Long Term Follow-upU01NS038384 · NINDS · UNIV OF MED/DENT OF NJ-NJ MEDICAL SCHOOL · PI BROTT, THOMAS G, SHEFFET, ALICE J · 2011 to 2016
$15.4M
NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS 038384NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS038384NINDS NIH HHS U01 NS038384
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWith patients living a decade or longer post-procedure, long-term data are needed to assess the durability of carotid artery stenting versus carotid endarterectomy. Identifying characteristics of those consenting or declining to continue in long-term follow-up may suggest strategies to improve retention in clinical trials. PURPOSE: This report describes differences between patients choosing or declining to continue follow-up for up to 10 years in the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial.

methodsFollowing completion of the primary outcome, patients who were in active Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial follow-up were asked to continue beyond their original 4-year commitment for a maximum of 10 years. The characteristics of those who consented were compared with those who declined. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression were used for analysis, and backwards stepwise logistic regression (the most parsimonious model) was used to determine the factors associated with continuation.

resultsOf the 1921 active Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial participants for whom consent to extend follow-up was requested, 1695 (88%; mean age: 68.4) consented; 226 (12%; mean age: 69.6) declined. Of those who did not consent versus those who consented, 66% versus 48% were symptomatic at baseline (p<0.0001), at follow-up 28% versus 20% were smokers (p=0.009), 85% versus 90% were hypertensive (p=0.01), and 84% versus 94% were dyslipidemic (p<0.0001). Additional factors that differed between those who did not consent and those who consented included the mean number of years in the study at time of consent (4.8 years vs 3.7 years (p=<0.0001)) and patients from sites that enrolled <30 patients compared to sites randomizing 30 or more (70% vs 52% (p<0.0001)). Multivariable logistic regression indicated that those with lesser odds of consenting to the extended follow-up were older (odds ratio: 0.80; 95% confidence interval: 0.67, 0.96), more likely to be symptomatic (odds ratio: 0.58; 95% confidence interval: 0.42, 0.80), smokers (odds ratio: 0.48; 95% confidence interval: 0.34, 0.70), were in the study 5+ years versus <3 (odds ratio: 0.21; 95% confidence interval: 0.13, 0.34), and at a site that randomized <30 patients (odds ratio: 0.46; 95% confidence interval: 0.33, 0.63), while patients with dyslipidemia at follow-up had increased odds of consenting (odds ratio: 2.28 (1.47, 3.54)).

conclusionSymptomatic status, increasing age, randomized at lower volume centers, and longer time in follow-up were associated with reduced odds of consenting to long-term follow-up. Identifying factors associated with reduced willingness to extend participation long-term can suggest targeted strategies to improve retention in future clinical trials.

Indexed as

Attitude to HealthLost to Follow-UpAgedCarotid Artery DiseasesEndarterectomy, CarotidFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansInformed ConsentLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedStentscarotid endarterectomycarotid stentingelderly participantslong-term follow-uppatient characteristicsRandomized clinical trialretentionstroke

Identifiers

PMID26122922
PMCPMC4652580
OpenAlexW1568992978

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.