ArticleTrials2018
Identifying trial recruitment uncertainties using a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership - the PRioRiTy (Prioritising Recruitment in Randomised Trials) study.
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.
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
82 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised trials.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Trial Forge Guidance 5: ethical considerations in randomised Studies Within A Trial (SWATs).Trials · 2025Guideline
- Recruitment rates and strategies in exercise trials in cancer survivorship: a systematic review.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2024Pooled it
- Are People with Aphasia Included in Stroke Trials? A Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis.Clinical rehabilitation · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- The research burden of randomized controlled trial participation: a systematic thematic synthesis of qualitative evidence.BMC medicine · 2020Pooled it
- A systematic review of the efficiency of recruitment to stroke rehabilitation randomised controlled trials.Trials · 2020Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Recruitment strategies in randomised controlled trials of men aged 50 years and older: a systematic review.BMJ open · 2019Pooled it
- SWAT 116: the effectiveness of an infographic to improve trial recruitment-a randomised study within a trial (SWAT).Trials · 2026Trial
- Effects of a non-standard information leaflet on patient recruitment in acute care: Embedded cluster-randomised controlled trial.PloS one · 2025Trial
- Trial
- Participant Motivators and Expectations in the MEL-SELF Randomized Clinical Trial of Patient-Led Surveillance for Recurrent Melanoma: Content Analysis of Survey Responses.JMIR dermatology · 2024Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- Challenges in Recruiting University Students for Web-Based Indicated Prevention of Depression and Anxiety: Results From a Randomized Controlled Trial (ICare Prevent).Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Trial
- Trial
22 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
23 authors.
Funding
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
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.