Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30949611›Full record

ArticleContemporary clinical trials communications2019

Treatment preference and recruitment to pediatric RCTs: A systematic review.

L Beasant, A Brigden, R M Parslow, H Apperley, T Keep, A Northam, C Wray, H King, R Langdon, N Mills and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Contemporary clinical trials communications, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2026
    Article
  7. Randomized pilot study comparing standard vs high-calorie feeding in infants with Neonatal Opioid Withdrawal Syndrome.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Parents' and children's experiences of participating in a randomized controlled clinical trial: AIDIT-QS.International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being · 2024
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
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

12 authors.

L BeasantCentre for Academic Child Health, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, UK.
A BrigdenCentre for Academic Child Health, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, UK.
R M ParslowCentre for Academic Child Health, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, UK.
H ApperleyDepartment of Academic Paediatrics, Royal Alexandra Children's Hospital, Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals, UK.
T KeepNHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, UK.
A NorthamDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, Royal Sussex County Hospital, Brighton and Sussex Medical School, UK.
C WrayPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, UK.
H KingBristol Royal Hospital for Children, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Trust, UK.
R LangdonPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, UK.
N MillsPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, UK.
B YoungInstitute of Psychology, Health and Society, University of Liverpool, UK.
E CrawleyCentre for Academic Child Health, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, UK.

Funding

Department of Health SRF-2013-06-013Medical Research Council MR/K025643/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecruitment to pediatric randomised controlled trials (RCTs) can be a challenge, with ethical issues surrounding assent and consent. Pediatric RCTs frequently recruit from a smaller pool of patients making adequate recruitment difficult. One factor which influences recruitment and retention in pediatric trials is patient and parent preferences for treatment. PURPOSE: To systematically review pediatric RCTs reporting treatment preference.

methodsDatabase searches included: MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and COCHRANE.Qualitative or quantitative papers were eligible if they reported: pediatric population, (0-17 years) recruited to an RCT and reported treatment preference for all or some of the participants/parents in any clinical area. Data extraction included: Number of eligible participants consenting to randomisation arms, number of eligible patients not randomised because of treatment preference, and any further information reported on preferences (e.g., if parent preference was different from child).

resultsFifty-two studies were included. The number of eligible families declining participation in an RCT because of preference for treatment varied widely (between 2 and 70%) in feasibility, conventional and preference trial designs. Some families consented to trial involvement despite having preferences for a specific treatment. Data relating to 'participant flow and recruitment' was not always reported consistently, therefore numbers who were lost to follow-up or withdrew due to preference could not be extracted.

conclusionsFamilies often have treatment preferences which may affect trial recruitment. Whilst children appear to hold treatment preferences, this is rarely reported. Further investigation is needed to understand the reasons for preference and the impact preference has on RCT recruitment, retention and outcome.

Indexed as

ParentPediatricRandomised controlled trialRecruitmentTreatment preference

Identifiers

PMID30949611
PMCPMC6430075

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.