Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28979535›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Intensive Care Society2017

Exploring obstacles to critical care trials in the UK: A qualitative investigation.

Natalie Pattison, Nishkantha Arulkumaran, Sally Humphreys, Tim Walsh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Intensive Care Society, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Research Priorities in Critical Care Cardiology: JACC Expert Panel.Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2023
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Co-enrolment to UK Critical Care Studies - A 2019 update.Journal of the Intensive Care Society · 2022
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Barriers and challenges in the process of including critically ill patients in clinical studies.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2020
    Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

4 authors.

Natalie PattisonCritical Care, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Nishkantha ArulkumaranCritical Care, Hammersmith Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
Sally HumphreysCritical Care, West Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust, Bury St Edmunds, UK.
Tim WalshCritical Care, University of Edinburgh/Edinburgh Royal Infirmary, Edinburgh, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical trials in critical care are often resource-intense, with many unique challenges. Barriers to effective recruitment and implementation of study intervention have not been explored in a UK context.

aimTo identify facilitating factors and barriers to enrolling patients into critical care clinical trials within the UK from clinician's perspectives.

methodsA qualitative interview study was undertaken on behalf of the National Institute of Health Research critical care specialty group, in which research active clinicians across different Clinical Research Networks were interviewed. A loosely structured interview schedule was used, based on themes generated from the literature associated with accessing critical care trials. Research teams (critical care doctors, research nurses, and trial coordinators) from hospitals from each Clinical Research Network were contacted to try to achieve representation across the UK.

resultsInterviews were carried out across nine UK Clinical Research Networks with a range of doctors and research nurses. All hospitals were teaching hospitals with varying research nurse numbers and allocated consultant research sessions. There were a range of six to nine ongoing clinical trials in critical care for each centre representative interviewed. Data were analysed using framework analysis, and six final themes were identified related to factors associated with: centre, unit, resources, study, clinician, and patient/family. The most commonly cited barrier to conducting clinical trials was related to resources, namely insufficient human and financial resources, leading to staff and study recruitment difficulties. Clinical uncertainty and equipoise regarding comparative merits of trials were challenging in terms of engaging critical care teams. A number of patient and family factors added complexities in terms of recruitment; however, refusal rates were generally reported as low.

conclusionFlexibility in funding and employment by research teams enables continuity of studies and staff. Innovative measures to incentivise research nurses and clinical teams can help recruit more patients into trials. Research teams are highly committed to providing cover to recruit critical care trials, and a significant effort to anticipate barriers is undertaken; these endeavours are summarised to provide guidance for other teams wishing to address any potential difficulties.

Indexed as

accesscritical carequalitativeTrials

Identifiers

PMID28979535
PMCPMC5606357

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.