ArticleTherapeutic innovation & regulatory science2021
Benchmarking Patient Recruitment and Retention Practices.
Article in Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Measuring Centralized Patient Outreach Recruitment Strategies and their Costs in Clinical Trials.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2026Article
- Association of Protocol Design-Related Factors With Enrollment Duration in Clinical Trials.Clinical and translational science · 2026Article
- Benchmarking Site Activation and Patient Enrollment.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2024Article
- Principal Investigators' Perceptions on Factors Associated with Successful Recruitment in Clinical Trials.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2023Article
- Article
- Machine Learning Prediction of Clinical Trial Operational Efficiency.The AAPS journal · 2022Article
- Clinical trial site identification practices and the use of electronic health records in feasibility evaluations: An interview study in the Nordic countries.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patient recruitment and retention continue to present challenges in conducting clinical trials. The objectives of the study were to benchmark patient recruitment and retention practices across recent global clinical trials from a working group of biopharmaceutical companies and to re-visit the results from an earlier study published 7 years ago. The data collection focused on patient and site enrollment metrics and recruitment and retention tactics used for studies. Analyses were conducted comparing the results from 2012 and 2019. The results indicated that more studies met or exceeded planned enrollment than the previous research and global differences were observed in the present study for site activation rates and target to actual enrollment rates. Since an updated set of recruitment and retention tactics were evaluated in the present study, no comparisons were made to previous data. Researchers suggest further study that would examine usage and effectiveness of specific recruitment and retention tactics across global studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32548703What 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.