Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27317350›Full record

ReviewJournal of the American Heart Association2016

Trends in Consent for Clinical Trials in Cardiovascular Disease.

Louis A Kerkhoff, Javed Butler, Anita A Kelkar, Supriya Shore, Candace D Speight, Louisa K Wall, Neal W Dickert

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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.

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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. 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

7 authors.

Louis A KerkhoffMedical College of Georgia-University of Georgia Medical Partnership, Augusta University, Athens, GA.
Javed ButlerDivision of Cardiology, Stony Brook University School of Medicine, Stony Brook, NY.
Anita A KelkarDivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA.
Supriya ShoreDivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA.
Candace D SpeightDivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA.
Louisa K WallDivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA.
Neal W DickertDivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA Department of Epidemiology, Emory University Rollins School of Public Health, Atlanta, GA njr@emory.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCardiovascular clinical trials depend on patient enrollment. Enrollment rates appear inadequate, but little is known about how frequently patients accept or decline offers of enrollment. The objective of this study was to assess trends and predictors of patient acceptance of offers to enroll in clinical trials for cardiovascular disease. METHODS AND

resultsWe utilized an established database containing all randomized, controlled trials (n=1224) in cardiovascular disease published between 2001 and 2012 in the 8 highest-impact general medical and cardiology journals. Studies were eligible if the number of patients approached and number of patients declining enrollment could be ascertained from published materials. All studies were screened for eligibility. Each eligible study was reviewed by 3 co-authors. All discrepancies were resolved by the group. The main outcome was acceptance rate, defined as the number of patients enrolled divided by the number patients who were eligible and approached. Only 21.7% (n=266) of studies provided information sufficient to assess patient enrollment and refusals. The median acceptance rate across trials was 83.2%. Significant predictors of higher enrollment included: enrollment in the acute setting (P=0.031); geographical region (P<0.001 for group); and trial sponsorship (P=0.006 for group).

conclusionsRates of reporting data sufficient to calculate acceptance rates are low. This compromises the ability to identify drivers of low enrollment and assess trial generalizability. However, the high rates of acceptance observed suggest that factors other than patients' decisions may be the primary drivers of declining rates of trial enrollment.

Indexed as

Cardiovascular DiseasesEthics, ResearchHumansInformed ConsentPatient Acceptance of Health CarePatient SelectionRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTime Factorsclinical trialinformed consentrecruitmentresearch ethicstrials

Identifiers

PMID27317350
PMCPMC4937285

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.