Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28705151›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2017

Cost and yield considerations when expanding recruitment for genetic studies: the primary open-angle African American glaucoma genetics study.

Rebecca Salowe, Laura O'Keefe, Sayaka Merriam, Roy Lee, Naira Khachatryan, Prithvi Sankar, Eydie Miller-Ellis, Amanda Lehman, Victoria Addis, Windell Murphy and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2017. 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. Evaluation of the cost and effectiveness of diverse recruitment methods for a genetic screening study.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2019
    Article
  5. Article
  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

13 authors.

Rebecca SaloweScheie Eye Institute, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Laura O'KeefeScheie Eye Institute, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Sayaka MerriamScheie Eye Institute, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Roy LeeScheie Eye Institute, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Naira KhachatryanScheie Eye Institute, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Prithvi SankarScheie Eye Institute, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Eydie Miller-EllisScheie Eye Institute, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Amanda LehmanScheie Eye Institute, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Victoria AddisScheie Eye Institute, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Windell Murphy, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Jeffrey HendererLewis Katz School of Medicine, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Maureen MaguireScheie Eye Institute, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Joan O'BrienScheie Eye Institute, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. joan.o'brien@uphs.upenn.edu.

Funding

Scientific TransparencyP30EY001583 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI Qi N Cui · 1985 to 2026
$19.5M
Primary Open Angle African-American Glaucoma Genetics Study RenewalR01EY023557 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI O'BRIEN, JOAN M · 2014 to 2025
$18.1M
NEI NIH HHS HHSN263201200001CNEI NIH HHS P30 EY001583NEI NIH HHS R01 EY023557NIH HHS HHSN263201200001E
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAfrican Americans have been historically under-represented in genetic studies. More research is needed on effective recruitment strategies for this population, especially on approaches that supplement traditional clinic enrollment. This study evaluates the cost and efficacy of four supplemental recruitment methods employed by the Primary Open-Angle African American Glaucoma Genetics (POAAGG) study.

methodsAfter enrolling 2304 patients from University of Pennsylvania ophthalmology clinics, the POAAGG study implemented four new recruitment methods to supplement clinic enrollment. These methods included: 1) outreach in the local community, 2) in-house screening of community members ("in-reach"), 3) expansion to two external sites, and 4) sampling of the Penn Medicine Biobank. The cost per subject was calculated for each method and enrollment among cases, controls, and suspects was reported.

resultsThe biobank offered the lowest cost ($5/subject) and highest enrollment yield (n = 2073) of the four methods, but provided very few glaucoma cases (n = 31). External sites provided 88% of cases recruited from the four methods (n = 388; $85/subject), but case enrollment at these sites declined over the next 9 months as the pool of eligible subjects was depleted. Outreach and in-reach screenings of community members were very high cost for low return on enrollment ($569/subject for 102 subjects and $606/subject for 45 subjects, respectively).

conclusionsThe biobank offered the most cost-effective method for control enrollment, while expansion to external sites was necessary to recruit richly phenotyped cases. These recruitment methods helped the POAAGG study to exceed enrollment of the discovery cohort (n = 5500) 6 months in advance of the predicated deadline and could be adopted by other large genetic studies seeking to supplement clinic enrollment.

Indexed as

Patient SelectionAdultAgedBlack or African AmericanCost-Benefit AnalysisGenetic TestingGlaucoma, Open-AngleHumansMiddle AgedPhiladelphiaReproducibility of ResultsAfrican American enrollmentAfrican American recruitmentAfrican AmericansBiobanksEnrollmentExternal sitesGenetic studiesOutreachRecruitment

Identifiers

PMID28705151
PMCPMC5512952

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.