Observational studyTrials2017
Reasons for non-recruitment of eligible patients to a randomised controlled trial of secondary prevention after intracerebral haemorrhage: observational study.
Observational study in Trials, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of antiplatelet therapy after stroke due to intracerebral haemorrhage (RESTART): a randomised, open-label trial.Lancet (London, England) · 2019Trial
- The MATE trial: a multicentre, mixed-methodology, pilot, randomised controlled trial in neovascular age-related macular degeneration.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2023Article
- Risks of recurrent stroke and all serious vascular events after spontaneous intracerebral haemorrhage: pooled analyses of two population-based studies.The Lancet. Neurology · 2021Article
- Safety and efficacy of restarting antiplatelet therapy after intracerebral hemorrhage.Annals of translational medicine · 2019Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
37 authors at 20 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRecruitment to randomised prevention trials is challenging, not least for intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH) associated with antithrombotic drug use. We investigated reasons for not recruiting apparently eligible patients at hospital sites that keep screening logs in the ongoing REstart or STop Antithrombotics Randomised Trial (RESTART), which seeks to determine whether to start antiplatelet drugs after ICH.
methodBy the end of May 2015, 158 participants had been recruited at 108 active sites in RESTART. The trial coordinating centre invited all sites that kept screening logs to submit screening log data, followed by one reminder. We checked the integrity of data, focused on the completeness of data about potentially eligible patients and categorised the reasons they were not randomised.
resultsOf 108 active sites, 39 (36%) provided usable screening log data over a median of ten (interquartile range = 5-13) months of recruitment per site. During this time, sites screened 633 potentially eligible patients and randomised 53 (8%) of them. The main reasons why 580 patients were not randomised were: 43 (7%) patients started anticoagulation, 51 (9%) patients declined, 148 (26%) patients' stroke physicians were not uncertain about using antiplatelet drugs, 162 (28%) patients were too unwell and 176 (30%) patients were not randomised due to other reasons.
conclusionRESTART recruited ~8% of eligible patients. If more physicians were uncertain about the therapeutic dilemma that RESTART is addressing, RESTART could have recruited up to four times as many participants. The trial coordinating centre continues to engage with physicians about their uncertainty.
trial registrationEU Clinical Trials, EudraCT 2012-003190-26 . Registered on 3 July 2012.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.