Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31924252›Full record

SynthesisTrials2020

A systematic review of the efficiency of recruitment to stroke rehabilitation randomised controlled trials.

Kris McGill, Catherine M Sackley, Jon Godwin, Jodie McGarry, Marian C Brady

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Trials, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Feasibility, Fidelity and Acceptability of a Person-Centred Care Transition Support Intervention for Stroke Survivors: A Non-Randomised Controlled Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  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

5 authors.

Kris McGillNursing Midwifery and Allied Health Professionals Research Unit, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK. Kris.mcgill@gcu.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0307-1440
Catherine M SackleyKing's College London, London, UK.
Jon GodwinGlasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK.
Jodie McGarryGlasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK.
Marian C BradyNursing Midwifery and Allied Health Professionals Research Unit, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) that fail to meet their recruitment target risk increasing research waste. Acute stroke RCTs experience notable recruitment issues. The efficiency of recruitment to stroke rehabilitation RCTs has not been explored. AIMS AND

objectivesTo explore recruitment efficiency and the trial features associated with efficient recruitment to stroke rehabilitation RCTs.

methodsA systematic review of stroke rehabilitation RCTs published between 2005 and 2015 identified in a search of the Cochrane Stroke Group (CSG) Trials Register from 35 electronic databases (e.g. Medline, CINAHL; EMBASE), clinical trial registers, and hand-searching. Inclusion criteria are stroke rehabilitation intervention, delivered by a member of the rehabilitation team, and clinically relevant environment. We extracted data on recruitment efficiency and trial features.

resultsWe screened 12,939 titles, 1270 abstracts and 788 full texts, before extracting data from 512 included RCTs (n = 28,804 stroke survivor participants). This is the largest systematic review of recruitment to date. A third of stroke survivors screened consented to participate (median 34% (IQR 14-61), on average sites recruited 1.5 participants per site per month (IQR 0.71-3.22), and one in twenty (6% (IQR 0-13) dropped out during the RCT. Almost half (48%) of those screened in the community were recruited compared to hospital settings (27%). Similarly, almost half (47%) those screened at least 6 months after stroke participated, compared to 23% of stroke survivors screened within a month of stroke. When one recruiter screened multiple sites, a median of one stroke survivor was recruited every 2 months compared to more than two per month when there was a dedicated recruiter per site. RCT recruitment was significantly faster per site, with fewer dropouts, for trials conducted in Asia (almost three stroke survivors monthly; 2% dropout) compared to European trials (approximately one stroke survivor monthly; 7% dropout).

conclusionsOne third of stroke survivors screened were randomised to rehabilitation RCTs at a rate of between one and two per month, per site. One in twenty did not complete the trial. Our findings will inform recruitment plans of future stroke rehabilitation RCTs. Limited reporting of recruitment details restricted the subgroup analysis performed.

trial registrationProspective Register of Systematic Reviews, registration number CRD42016033067.

Indexed as

Patient SelectionRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicStroke RehabilitationHumansSample SizeStrokeTreatment OutcomeRandomised controlled trialsRecruitmentRehabilitationReporting standardsStrokeSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID31924252
PMCPMC6954526

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.