ArticleContemporary clinical trials communications2019
Treatment preference and recruitment to pediatric RCTs: A systematic review.
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.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Effective and resource-efficient strategies for recruiting families in physical activity, sedentary behavior, nutrition, and obesity prevention research: A systematic review with expert opinion.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2021Pooled it
- Trial
- Medical management and intervention (using neurosurgical resection or stereotactic radiosurgery) versus medical management alone for symptomatic brain cavernoma: the CARE pilot RCT.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2025Trial
- Trial
- Article
- 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 · 2026Article
- Parental perspectives and willingness towards digital paediatric research: a cross-sectional survey in two Chinese cities.BMJ open · 2026Article
- 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 · 2024Article
- Barriers and facilitators to enrollment in pediatric clinical trials: an overview of systematic reviews.Systematic reviews · 2024Review
- Review
- Pediatric subspecialty healthcare providers' views of recruitment during a randomized controlled trial of a mobile health intervention.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2023Article
- Article
- Facebook Recruitment for Children with Advanced Cancer and Their Parents: Lessons from a Web-based Pediatric Palliative Intervention Study.Progress in palliative care · 2021Article
- A SuperLearner-enforced approach for the estimation of treatment effect in pediatric trials.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
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
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.