Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29169373›Full record

Trial reportTrials2017

The Treatment In Morning versus Evening (TIME) study: analysis of recruitment, follow-up and retention rates post-recruitment.

David A Rorie, Robert W V Flynn, Isla S Mackenzie, Thomas M MacDonald, Amy Rogers

Erratum issuedAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Trials, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Chronotherapy for Hypertension.Current hypertension reports · 2018
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

David A RorieDivision of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, University of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, DD1 9SY, UK. drorie@dundee.ac.uk.
Robert W V FlynnDivision of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, University of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, DD1 9SY, UK.
Isla S MackenzieDivision of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, University of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, DD1 9SY, UK.
Thomas M MacDonaldDivision of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, University of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, DD1 9SY, UK.
Amy RogersDivision of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, University of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, DD1 9SY, UK.

Funding

British Heart Foundation CS/14/1/30659
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe use of information technology (IT) is now the preferred method of capturing and storing clinical research data. The Treatment In Morning versus Evening (TIME) study predominantly uses electronic data capture and IT to compare morning dosing of hypertensive medication against evening dosing. Registration, consent, participant demographics and follow-up data are all captured via the study website. The aim of this article is to assess the success of the TIME methodology compared with similar studies.

methodsTo assess the TIME study, published literature on similar clinical trials was reviewed and compared against TIME recruitment, follow-up and email interaction data.

resultsThe TIME website registered 31,695 individuals, 21,116 of whom were randomised. Recruitment cost per randomised participant varied by strategy: £17.40 by GP practice, £3.08 by UK Biobank and £58.82 for GoShare. Twelve-month follow-up retention rates were 96%. A total of 1089 participants have withdrawn from their assigned time of dosing, 2% of whom have declined follow-up by record linkage or further contact. When the TIME data are compared with similar study data, study recruitment is very successful. However, TIME suffers difficulties with participant follow-up and withdrawal rates similar to those of conventional studies.

conclusionsThe TIME study has been successful in recruitment. Follow-up, retention rates and withdrawal rates are all acceptable, but ongoing work is required to ensure participants remain engaged with the study. Various recruitment strategies are necessary, and all viable options should be encouraged to maintain participant engagement throughout the life of studies using IT.

Indexed as

Patient DropoutsPatient SelectionAntihypertensive AgentsBlood PressureDrug Administration ScheduleHumansHypertensionMedication AdherenceSample SizeTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeUnited KingdomAntihypertensive Agents

Identifiers

PMID29169373
PMCPMC5701451

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.