ArticleBMJ open2017
Informing future research for carriage of multiresistant Gram-negative bacteria: problems with recruiting to an English stool sample community prevalence study.
Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Public perceptions of biospecimen sampling and uncertainty in the context of personalised nutrition.PloS one · 2025Article
- Public acceptability of a technology-mediated stool sample collection platform to inform community-based surveillance of infectious intestinal disease: a pilot study.BMC public health · 2022Article
- Carriage of ESBL-producing Enterobacterales in wastewater treatment plant workers and surrounding residents - the AWARE Study.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2021Article
- Perspectives of pregnant and breastfeeding women on longitudinal clinical studies that require non-invasive biospecimen collection - a qualitative study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aims to highlight problems with recruiting to an English stool sample community prevalence study. It was part of a larger cross-sectional research to determine the risk factors for the presence of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase and carbapenemase-producing coliforms in stool samples of the asymptomatic general English population.
settingFour National Health Service primary care trusts (PCTs) of England representing a different section of the population of England: Newham PCT; Heart of Birmingham Teaching PCT; Shropshire County PCT; and Southampton City PCT.
participantsSixteen general practices across the four PCTs were purposefully selected. After stratification of GP lists by age, ethnicity and antibiotic use, 58 337 randomly selected patients were sent a postal invitation.Patients who had died, moved to a different surgery, were deemed too ill by their General Practitioner or hospitalised at the time of mailing were excluded.
resultsStool and questionnaire returns varied by area, age, gender and ethnicity; the highest return rate of 27.3% was in Shropshire in the age group of over 60 years; the lowest, 0.6%, was in Birmingham in the age group of 18-39 years. Whereas only 3.9%(2296) returned a completed questionnaire and stool sample, 94.9% of participants gave permission for their sample and data to be used in future research.
conclusionResearchers should consider the low stool specimen return rate and wide variation by ethnicity and age when planning future studies involving stool specimen collection. This is particularly pertinent if the study has no health benefit to participants. Further research is needed to explore how to improve recruitment in multicultural communities and in younger people.
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.