Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29490702›Full record

ArticleTrials2018

Identifying trial recruitment uncertainties using a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership - the PRioRiTy (Prioritising Recruitment in Randomised Trials) study.

Patricia Healy, Sandra Galvin, Paula R Williamson, Shaun Treweek, Caroline Whiting, Beccy Maeso, Christopher Bray, Peter Brocklehurst, Mary Clarke Moloney, Abdel Douiri and 13 more

Abstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 82 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
82citing papers in PubMed, 12 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

82 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised trials.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

22 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

23 authors.

Patricia HealyHealth Research Board - Trials Methodology Research Network, Galway, Ireland. Patricia.healy@nuigalway.ie.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0865-7050
Sandra GalvinHealth Research Board - Trials Methodology Research Network, Galway, Ireland.
Paula R WilliamsonMRC North West Hub for Trials Methodology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Shaun TreweekHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Caroline WhitingJames Lind Alliance, Wessex Institute, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Beccy MaesoJames Lind Alliance, Wessex Institute, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Christopher BrayOxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.
Peter BrocklehurstBirmingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Mary Clarke MoloneyHealth Research Institute, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland.
Abdel DouiriDivision of Health and Social Care Research, King's College London, London, UK.
Carrol GambleMRC North West Hub for Trials Methodology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Heidi R GardnerHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Derick MitchellIrish Platform for Patient Organisations, Science and Industry (IPPOSI), Dublin, Ireland.
Derek StewartNational Institute for Health Research, London, England, UK.
Joan JordanIrish Platform for Patient Organisations, Science and Industry (IPPOSI), Dublin, Ireland.
Martin O'DonnellHealth Research Board - Trials Methodology Research Network, Galway, Ireland.
Mike ClarkeHealth Research Board - Trials Methodology Research Network, Galway, Ireland.
Sue H PavittDental Translational and Clinical Research Unit (DenTCRU), Leeds NIHR CRF, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Eleanor Woodford GueganNIHR Evaluation Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre (NETSCC), University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Amanda Blatch-JonesNIHR Evaluation Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre (NETSCC), University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Valerie SmithHealth Research Board - Trials Methodology Research Network, Galway, Ireland.
Hannah ReayNational Institute for Health Research-Clinical Research Network (NIHR CRN), Birmingham, England, UK.
Declan DevaneHealth Research Board - Trials Methodology Research Network, Galway, Ireland.

Funding

Chief Scientist Office HSRU1Health Research Board KEDS-2015-1618Medical Research Council G0901530
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite the problem of inadequate recruitment to randomised trials, there is little evidence to guide researchers on decisions about how people are effectively recruited to take part in trials. The PRioRiTy study aimed to identify and prioritise important unanswered trial recruitment questions for research. The PRioRiTy study - Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) included members of the public approached to take part in a randomised trial or who have represented participants on randomised trial steering committees, health professionals and research staff with experience of recruiting to randomised trials, people who have designed, conducted, analysed or reported on randomised trials and people with experience of randomised trials methodology.

methodsThis partnership was aided by the James Lind Alliance and involved eight stages: (i) identifying a unique, relevant prioritisation area within trial methodology; (ii) establishing a steering group (iii) identifying and engaging with partners and stakeholders; (iv) formulating an initial list of uncertainties; (v) collating the uncertainties into research questions; (vi) confirming that the questions for research are a current recruitment challenge; (vii) shortlisting questions and (viii) final prioritisation through a face-to-face workshop.

resultsA total of 790 survey respondents yielded 1693 open-text answers to 6 questions, from which 1880 potential questions for research were identified. After merging duplicates, the number of questions was reduced to 496. Questions were combined further, and those that were submitted by fewer than 15 people and/or fewer than 6 of the 7 stakeholder groups were excluded from the next round of prioritisation resulting in 31 unique questions for research. All 31 questions were confirmed as being unanswered after checking relevant, up-to-date research evidence. The 10 highest priority questions were ranked at a face-to-face workshop. The number 1 ranked question was "How can randomised trials become part of routine care and best utilise current clinical care pathways?" The top 10 research questions can be viewed at www.priorityresearch.ie .

conclusionThe prioritised questions call for a collective focus on normalising trials as part of clinical care, enhancing communication, addressing barriers, enablers and motivators around participation and exploring greater public involvement in the research process.

Indexed as

Patient SelectionPublic-Private Sector PartnershipsUncertaintyCommunicationConsensusCooperative BehaviorHealth PrioritiesHumansPublic OpinionRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch PersonnelResearch SubjectsSample SizeStakeholder ParticipationSurveys and QuestionnairesJames Lind AllianceParticipation in randomised trialsPriority setting partnershipRecruitment challengesSurveyTrial methodology

Identifiers

PMID29490702
PMCPMC5831203

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.