ArticleContemporary clinical trials communications2017
Predicting enrollment performance of investigational centers in phase III multi-center clinical trials.
Article in Contemporary clinical trials communications, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Enhancing site selection strategies in clinical trial recruitment using real-world data modeling.PloS one · 2024Article
- Clinical trial facilitators: A novel approach to support the execution of clinical research at the study site level.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2023Article
- Quantifying geographical accessibility to cancer clinical trials in different income landscapes.ESMO open · 2022Article
- Clinical trial site identification practices and the use of electronic health records in feasibility evaluations: An interview study in the Nordic countries.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2021Article
- Factors associated with clinical trials that fail and opportunities for improving the likelihood of success: A review.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Failure to meet subject recruitment targets in clinical trials continues to be a widespread problem with potentially serious scientific, logistical, financial and ethical consequences. On the operational level, enrollment-related issues may be mitigated by careful site selection and by allocating monitoring or training resources proportionally to the anticipated risk of poor enrollment. Such procedures require estimates of the expected recruitment performance that are sufficiently reliable to allow centers to be sensibly categorized. In this study, we investigate whether information obtained from feasibility questionnaires can potentially be used to predict which centers will and which centers will not meet their enrollment targets by means of multivariable logistic regression analysis. From a large set of 59 candidate predictors, we determined the subset that is optimal for predictive purposes using Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) regularization. Although the extent to which the results are generalizable remains to be determined, they indicate that the prediction accuracy of the optimal model is only a marginal improvement over the intercept-only model, illustrating the difficulty of prediction in this setting.
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.