Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30948584›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2019

Recruitment strategies in randomised controlled trials of men aged 50 years and older: a systematic review.

Karen Bracken, Lisa Askie, Anthony C Keech, Wendy Hague, Gary Wittert

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  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

5 authors.

Karen BrackenNHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6085-445X
Lisa AskieNHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.
Anthony C KeechNHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.
Wendy HagueNHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.
Gary WittertDepartment of Medicine, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo identify and review evaluations of strategies to recruit men aged 50 years and over to randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

designSystematic review and narrative synthesis. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and ORRCA databases were searched to 1 December 2017. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies using quantitative methods to evaluate recruitment strategies to RCTs of men aged 50 years and older. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: A single reviewer extracted data (for each strategy, number of participants approached, screened and randomised, and cost). Study quality was assessed using National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute Quality Assessment Tools and considered study design, description of interventions, description and measurement of outcomes, completeness of outcome reporting, performance of statistical testing and consideration of confounders. Recruitment strategies were categorised by the recruitment stage they addressed.

resultsSixteen studies (n >14 000) were included: one good quality, ten fair quality and five poor quality. Studies evaluated strategies to identify prospective participants, and to improve the processes for assessing participant eligibility, providing participant information and seeking consent. In good and fair quality studies, the most effective strategies for identifying participants were referral from an affiliated health service provider (two studies), mass mailing (five studies) and media coverage (two studies). Community outreach activities such as displaying posters and attending local community events were not effective (two studies). Trial-specific training of site recruitment staff, developed using qualitative analysis of recruitment visits (two studies), and provision of study information to prospective participants at a multidisciplinary, group information session (one study) both improved recruitment.

conclusionImproved engagement of men aged 50 years and older in RCTs is needed. A gender-sensitised approach to RCT recruitment may help to address this need. We have identified several promising recruitment strategies that merit further evaluation. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017060301.

Indexed as

Patient SelectionAgedHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesQualitative ResearchRandomized Controlled Trials as Topicmen’s healthparticipant recruitmentpatient selectionrandomized controlled trialssystematic review

Identifiers

PMID30948584
PMCPMC6500287

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.