ArticleJournal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association
Improving Research Enrollment of Severe Burn Patients.
Article in Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Enrolling severely burn injured patients into prospective research studies poses specific challenges to investigators. The authors describe their experience of recruiting adults with ≥20% TBSA burns or inhalation injury admitted to a single academic burn unit into observational research with minimally invasive specimen collection. The authors outline iterative changes that they made to their recruitment processes in response to perceived weaknesses leading to delays in enrollment. The primary outcome was the change in days to consent for enrolled patients or cessation of recruitment for nonenrolled patients before and after the interventional modifications. The authors assessed change in overall enrollment as a secondary outcome. Study enrollment was approximately 70% in both 4-month study periods before and after the intervention. Following the intervention, time to consent by surrogate decision maker decreased from a median of 26.5 days (interquartile range [IQR] 14-41) to 3 days (IQR 3-6) (P = .004). Time to initial consent by patient changed from a median of 15 days (IQR 2-30) to 3 days (IQR 2-6) (P = .27). Time to decline for nonenrolled patients decreased from a median of 12 days (IQR 6.5-27) to 1.5 days (IQR 1-3.5) (P = .026). Both the findings of the study and a brief literature review suggest that careful design of the recruitment protocol, increased experience of the study team, and broad time windows for both approach and enrollment improve the efficiency of recruiting critically injured burn patients into research.
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.