Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27964743›Full record

ArticleTrials2016

Using re-randomization to increase the recruitment rate in clinical trials - an assessment of three clinical areas.

Brennan C Kahan

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. UEG Week 2019 Poster Presentations.United European gastroenterology journal · 2019
    Article
  9. 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

1 author.

Brennan C KahanPragmatic Clinical Trials Unit, Queen Mary University of London, 58 Turner St, London, E1 2AB, UK. b.kahan@qmul.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient recruitment in clinical trials is often challenging, and as a result, many trials are stopped early due to insufficient recruitment. The re-randomization design allows patients to be re-enrolled and re-randomized for each new treatment episode that they experience. Because it allows multiple enrollments for each patient, this design has been proposed as a way to increase the recruitment rate in clinical trials. However, it is unknown to what extent recruitment could be increased in practice.

methodsWe modelled the expected recruitment rate for parallel-group and re-randomization trials in different settings based on estimates from real trials and datasets. We considered three clinical areas: in vitro fertilization, severe asthma exacerbations, and acute sickle cell pain crises. We compared the two designs in terms of the expected time to complete recruitment, and the sample size recruited over a fixed recruitment period.

resultsAcross the different scenarios we considered, we estimated that re-randomization could reduce the expected time to complete recruitment by between 4 and 22 months (relative reductions of 19% and 45%), or increase the sample size recruited over a fixed recruitment period by between 29% and 171%. Re-randomization can increase recruitment most for trials with a short follow-up period, a long trial recruitment duration, and patients with high rates of treatment episodes.

conclusionsRe-randomization has the potential to increase the recruitment rate in certain settings, and could lead to quicker and more efficient trials in these scenarios.

Indexed as

Patient SelectionSample SizeAnemia, Sickle CellAnti-Asthmatic AgentsAsthmaComputer SimulationDisease ProgressionFemaleFertilization in VitroHumansModels, StatisticalPregnancyPregnancy RateRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRetreatmentSeverity of Illness IndexAnti-Asthmatic AgentsEfficient trial designRandomized controlled trialsRecruitmentRe-randomization

Identifiers

PMID27964743
PMCPMC5154140

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.