Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26186981›Full record

SynthesisJournal of clinical epidemiology2015

Updated systematic review identifies substantial number of retention strategies: using more strategies retains more study participants.

Karen A Robinson, Victor D Dinglas, Vineeth Sukrithan, Ramakrishna Yalamanchilli, Pedro A Mendez-Tellez, Cheryl Dennison-Himmelfarb, Dale M Needham

Registry-linked trialAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07262593 (Family-Based Meal Timing for Cancer Prevention Among Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islanders), which is not on this map. Cited by 100 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
100citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT07262593 naterminatednot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Family-Based Meal Timing for Cancer Prevention Among Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islanders: FAMTIME

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of UtahRan2024 to 2024Enrolled2ConditionsCancer PreventionArmsTime Restricted Eating (TRE), Medically Tailored Meals (MTM)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

100 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Efficacy and Safety of Ongericimab in Chinese Patients with Hypercholesterolemia: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.American journal of cardiovascular drugs : drugs, devices, and other interventions · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Natural History of Cognitive Impairment in Critical Illness Survivors. A Systematic Review.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2020
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

40 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

7 authors.

Karen A RobinsonDepartment of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 1830 East Baltimore Street, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA. Electronic address: krobin@jhmi.edu.
Victor D DinglasDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 1830 East Baltimore Street, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA.
Vineeth SukrithanDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 1830 East Baltimore Street, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA.
Ramakrishna YalamanchilliDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 1830 East Baltimore Street, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA.
Pedro A Mendez-TellezDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 N. Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA.
Cheryl Dennison-HimmelfarbDepartment of Acute and Chronic Care, Johns Hopkins University School of Nursing, 525 N. Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.
Dale M NeedhamDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 1830 East Baltimore Street, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA.

Funding

Improving Long-Term Outcomes Clinical Research for Acute Respiratory FailureR24HL111895 · NHLBI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI NEEDHAM, DALE MURRAY · 2013 to 2017
$5.4M
NHLBI NIH HHS R24 HL111895NHLBI NIH HHS R24HL111895
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectiveThe retention of participants in studies is important for the validity of research. We updated our prior systematic review (2005) to assess retention strategies for in-person follow-up in health care studies.

methodsWe searched PubMed, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Methodology Register, and Embase (August 2013) for English-language reports of studies that described retention strategies for in-person follow-up in health care studies. We abstracted each retention strategy, and two authors independently classified each retention strategy with one of the themes developed in our prior review.

resultsWe identified 88 studies (67 newly identified studies), six of which were designed to compare retention strategies, whereas the remainder described retention strategies and retention rates. There were 985 strategies abstracted from the descriptive studies (617 from new studies), with a median (interquartile range) number of strategies per study of 10 (7 to 17) and a median (interquartile range) number of themes per study of 6 (4 to 7). Financial incentives were used in 47 (57%) of the descriptive studies. We classified 28% of the strategies under the theme of "contact and scheduling methods," with 83% of the identified studies using at least one strategy within this theme. The number of strategies used was positively correlated with retention rate (P = 0.027), but the number of themes was not associated with retention rate (P = 0.469).

conclusionThe number of studies describing retention strategies has substantially increased since our prior review. However, the lack of comparative studies and the heterogeneity in the types of strategies, participant population and study designs, prohibits synthesis to determine the types of cohort retention strategies that were most effective. However, using a larger number of retention strategies, across five or six different themes, appears to retain more study participants.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicPatient DropoutsPatient SelectionData CollectionFollow-Up StudiesHumansReproducibility of ResultsUnited StatesFollow-up studiesIn-person follow-upMethodsRetention strategiesSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID26186981
PMCPMC4658250

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.