Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29420230›Full record

ReviewBMJ open2018

Detailed systematic analysis of recruitment strategies in randomised controlled trials in patients with an unscheduled admission to hospital.

Ceri Rowlands, Leila Rooshenas, Katherine Fairhurst, Jonathan Rees, Carrol Gamble, Jane M Blazeby

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational
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

6 authors.

Ceri RowlandsMRC ConDuCT-II Hub for Trials Methodology Research, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9497-5532
Leila RooshenasMRC ConDuCT-II Hub for Trials Methodology Research, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Katherine FairhurstMRC ConDuCT-II Hub for Trials Methodology Research, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Jonathan ReesSchool of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol.
Carrol GambleMRC North West Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Institute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Jane M BlazebyMRC ConDuCT-II Hub for Trials Methodology Research, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K025643/1Medical Research Council MR/L004933/1Medical Research Council MR/L004933/2
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo examine the design and findings of recruitment studies in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving patients with an unscheduled hospital admission (UHA), to consider how to optimise recruitment in future RCTs of this nature.

designStudies within the ORRCA database (Online Resource for Recruitment Research in Clinical TriAls; www.orrca.org.uk) that reported on recruitment to RCTs involving UHAs in patients >18 years were included. Extracted data included trial clinical details, and the rationale and main findings of the recruitment study.

resultsOf 3114 articles populating ORRCA, 39 recruitment studies were eligible, focusing on 68 real and 13 hypothetical host RCTs. Four studies were prospectively planned investigations of recruitment interventions, one of which was a nested RCT. Most recruitment papers were reports of recruitment experiences from one or more 'real' RCTs (n=24) or studies using hypothetical RCTs (n=11). Rationales for conducting recruitment studies included limited time for informed consent (IC) and patients being too unwell to provide IC. Methods to optimise recruitment included providing patients with trial information in the prehospital setting, technology to allow recruiters to cover multiple sites, screening logs to uncover recruitment barriers, and verbal rather than written information and consent.

conclusionThere is a paucity of high-quality research into recruitment in RCTs involving UHAs with only one nested randomised study evaluating a recruitment intervention. Among the remaining studies, methods to optimise recruitment focused on how to improve information provision in the prehospital setting and use of screening logs. Future research in this setting should focus on the prospective evaluation of the well-developed interventions to optimise recruitment.

Indexed as

HospitalizationPatient SelectionRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicDatabases, FactualHumansInformed ConsentNon-Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicProspective StudiesResearch DesignSystems Analysisclinical trialsqualitative research

Identifiers

PMID29420230
PMCPMC5829602

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.