Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27855723›Full record

Trial reportTrials2016

Exceeding the recruitment target in a primary care paediatric trial: an evaluation of the Choice of Moisturiser for Eczema Treatment (COMET) feasibility randomised controlled trial.

Kingsley Powell, Victoria J Wilson, Niamh M Redmond, Daisy M Gaunt, Matthew J Ridd

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Trials, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kingsley PowellCentre for Academic Primary Care, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK. kingsley.powell@bristol.ac.uk.
Victoria J WilsonCentre for Academic Primary Care, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.
Niamh M RedmondCentre for Academic Primary Care, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.
Daisy M GauntBristol Randomised Trials Collaboration, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.
Matthew J RiddCentre for Academic Primary Care, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.
University of Bristol · GBUniversity Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

Department of Health PB-PG-0712-28056
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecruiting to target in randomised controlled trials of investigational medicinal products (CTIMPs) in primary care and paediatric populations is notoriously difficult. More evidence is needed for effective recruitment strategies in these settings. We report on the impact of different recruitment strategies used in the Choice of Moisturiser in Eczema Treatment (COMET) study - a feasibility trial comparing the effectiveness of four emollients for the treatment of childhood eczema - recruiting via general practitioner (GP) surgeries.

methodsInitially, 16 GP practices invited potentially eligible children to take part in the trial by sending an invitation letter (self-referral pathway) or by consenting and randomising them into the study during a visit to the practice (in-consultation referral). Measures implemented during the study to maximise accrual included signing up six additional GP practices, increasing the upper age limit eligibility criterion from 3 to 5 years, and permitting healthcare professionals other than doctors to confirm participant eligibility. We used descriptive statistics and univariate linear regression models to explore associations with practice recruitment rates.

resultsA total of 197 participants were recruited, exceeding the target of 160. Of these, 107 children entered via self-referral and 90 by in-consultation pathways. Of the recruited population, 12.6 % were aged between 3 and 5 years (the raised upper age limit). The six additional practices contributed 37.4 % (40 of 107) of participants recruited by self-referral. Only almost one-third (18 of 56 [32.1 %]) of potential recruiting clinicians recruited one or more participants in-consultation, which was a more problematic pathway because of data verification issues. Three research nurses and a pharmacist from four practices recruited 48.9 % (44 of 90) of participants via this pathway. Univariate linear regression models showed no evidence of association between the number of children recruited via the self-referral pathway by practice and practice list size (p = 0.092) or practice deprivation decile (p = 0.270), but practice deprivation was associated with a higher number of children recruited in-consultation (p = 0.020) by practice.

conclusionsSelf-referral and in-consultation recruitment yielded similar numbers, but the in-consultation pathway was more problematic. Future trials of this type should consider the condition, normal care pathway and number of potentially eligible children and be prepared to use multiple recruitment strategies to achieve recruitment targets.

trial registrationISRCTN21828118 . Registered on 1 May 2014. EudraCT2013-003001-26. Registered on 23 Dec 2013.

Indexed as

Patient SelectionPrimary Health CareChildChild, PreschoolEczemaEmollientsHumansReferral and ConsultationEmollientsChildrenEczemaPrimary careRandomised controlled trialsRecruitment

Identifiers

PMID27855723
PMCPMC5114843
OpenAlexW2556785857

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.