Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31615577›Full record

SynthesisTrials2019

What are the most important unanswered research questions in trial retention? A James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership: the PRioRiTy II (Prioritising Retention in Randomised Trials) study.

Evelyn Brunsdon, Linda Biesty, Peter Brocklehurst, Valerie Brueton, Declan Devane, Jim Elliott, Sandra Galvin, Carrol Gamble, Heidi Gardner, Patricia Healy and 14 more

Abstract readConsensus StatementSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Trials, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

48 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised trials.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. The Influence of Relationships Within Behavioral Weight Management Interventions: An Overview.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2026
    Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

24 authors.

Evelyn BrunsdonHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Linda BiestySchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Evidence Synthesis Ireland, NUI Galway, Galway, Ireland.
Peter BrocklehurstBirmingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Valerie BruetonDepartment of Adult Nursing, Kings College London, London, UK.
Declan DevaneHealth Research Board-Trials Methodology Research Network, Galway, Ireland.
Jim ElliottHealth Research Authority, National Health Service, London, UK.
Sandra GalvinHealth Research Board-Trials Methodology Research Network, Galway, Ireland.
Carrol GambleDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Heidi GardnerHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Patricia HealySchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Evidence Synthesis Ireland, NUI Galway, Galway, Ireland.
Kerenza HoodCentre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Joan JordanEuropean Patients' Academy, London, UK.
Doris LanzWomen's Health Research Unit, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Beccy MaesoJames Lind Alliance, Wessex Institute, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Amanda RobertsHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Imogen SkeneBarts Health NHS Trust, London, UK.
Irene SoulsbyHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Derek StewartHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
David TorgersonYork Trials Unit, University of York, York, UK.
Shaun TreweekHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Caroline WhitingJames Lind Alliance, Wessex Institute, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Sharon WrenAction on Hearing Loss, British Deaf Association, Deafscotland, Glasgow, UK.
Andrew WorrallHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Katie GilliesHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK. k.gillies@abdn.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-7890-2854

Funding

Chief Scientist Office CGA/17/49Chief Scientist Office HSRU1Medical Research Council MR/K024310/1Medical Research Council MR/L01193X/1Medical Research Council Methodology Fellowship MR/L01193X/1Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorate CGA/17/49
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOne of the top three research priorities for the UK clinical trial community is to address the gap in evidence-based approaches to improving participant retention in randomised trials. Despite this, there is little evidence supporting methods to improve retention. This paper reports the PRioRiTy II project, a Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) that identified and prioritised unanswered questions and uncertainties around trial retention in collaboration with key stakeholders.

methodsThis PSP was conducted in collaboration with the James Lind Alliance, a non-profit making initiative, to support key stakeholders (researchers, patients, and the public) in jointly identifying and agreeing on priority research questions. There were three stages. (1) First an initial online survey was conducted consisting of six open-ended questions about retention in randomised trials. Responses were coded into thematic groups to create a longlist of questions. The longlist of questions was checked against existing evidence to ensure that they had not been answered by existing research. (2) An interim stage involved a further online survey where stakeholders were asked to select questions of key importance from the longlist. (3) A face-to-face consensus meeting was held, where key stakeholder representatives agreed on an ordered list of 21 unanswered research questions for methods of improving retention in randomised trials.

resultsA total of 456 respondents yielded 2431 answers to six open-ended questions, from which 372 questions specifically about retention were identified. Further analysis included thematically grouping all data items within answers and merging questions in consultation with the Steering Group. This produced 27 questions for further rating during the interim survey. The top 21 questions from the interim online survey were brought to a face-to-face consensus meeting in which key stakeholder representatives prioritised the order. The 'Top 10' of these are reported in this paper. The number one ranked question was 'What motivates a participant's decision to complete a clinical trial?' The entire list will be available at www.priorityresearch.ie .

conclusionThe Top 10 list can inform the direction of future research on trial methods and be used by funders to guide projects aiming to address and improve retention in randomised trials.

Indexed as

Health PrioritiesPatient DropoutsPatient SelectionResearch DesignCooperative BehaviorEvidence-Based MedicineHumansInterdisciplinary CommunicationRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicStakeholder ParticipationUnited KingdomJames Lind AllianceParticipant retentionParticipation in randomised trialsPatient and public involvementPriority Setting PartnershipRetention challengesTrials methodology

Identifiers

PMID31615577
PMCPMC6794792

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.