Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32933342›Full record

ArticleClinical trials (London, England)2021

Use of electronic recruitment methods in a clinical trial of adults with gout.

Hailey N Miller, Jeanne Charleston, Beiwen Wu, Kelly Gleason, Karen White, Cheryl R Dennison Himmelfarb, Daniel E Ford, Timothy B Plante, Allan C Gelber, Lawrence J Appel and 2 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical trials (London, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  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. Implementation ofJournal of clinical and translational science · 2024
    Article
  17. Embedding research study recruitment within the patient portal preCheck-in.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2023
    Article
  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

12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Hailey N MillerSchool of Nursing, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6045-6542
Jeanne CharlestonInstitute for Clinical and Translational Research, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Beiwen WuWelch Center for Prevention, Epidemiology, and Clinical Research, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Kelly GleasonSchool of Nursing, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Karen WhiteWelch Center for Prevention, Epidemiology, and Clinical Research, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Cheryl R Dennison HimmelfarbSchool of Nursing, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Daniel E FordInstitute for Clinical and Translational Research, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Timothy B PlanteDepartment of Medicine, Larner College of Medicine, The University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9992-9597
Allan C GelberWelch Center for Prevention, Epidemiology, and Clinical Research, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Lawrence J AppelInstitute for Clinical and Translational Research, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Edgar R MillerInstitute for Clinical and Translational Research, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Stephen P JuraschekDepartment of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Johns Hopkins University · USBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center · USUniversity of Vermont · US

Funding

QAQC Johns Hopkins Institute for Clinical and Translational ResearchUL1TR003098 · NCATS · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI FORD, DANIEL ERNEST · 2019 to 2023
$57.7M
Johns Hopkins-Tufts Trial Innovation Center HEAL Pain ERN SupplementU24TR001609 · NCATS · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI HANLEY, DANIEL F · 2016 to 2022
$36.3M
Institutional Career Development CoreKL2TR003099 · NCATS · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI GEBO, KELLY A · 2019 to 2023
$7.9M
Interdisciplinary Training in Cardiovascular Health ResearchT32NR012704 · NINR · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI ALLEN, JERILYN K · 2011 to 2020
$1.8M
Vitamin D, Subclinical Cardiovascular Disease, and Orthostatic Hypotension in Older AdultsK23HL135273 · NHLBI · BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER · PI JURASCHEK, STEPHEN P · 2017 to 2021
$1.1M
NCATS NIH HHS KL2 TR003099NCATS NIH HHS U24 TR001609NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR003098NHLBI NIH HHS K23 HL135273NINR NIH HHS T32 NR012704
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

aimsElectronic-based recruitment methods are increasingly utilized in clinical trials to recruit and enroll research participants. The cost-effectiveness of electronic-based methods and impact on sample generalizability is unknown. We compared recruitment yields, cost-effectiveness, and demographic characteristics across several electronic and traditional recruitment methods.

methodsWe analyzed data from the diet gout trial recruitment campaign. The diet gout trial was a randomized, controlled, cross-over trial that examined the effects of a dietary approaches to stop hypertension (DASH)-like diet on uric acid levels in adults with gout. We used four electronic medical record and four non-electronic medical record-based recruitment methods to identify and recruit potentially eligible participants. We calculated the response rate, screening visit completion rate, and randomization rate for each method. We also determined cost per response, the screening, and randomization for each method. Finally, we compared the demographic characteristics among individuals who completed the screening visit by recruitment method.

resultsOf the 294 adults who responded to the recruitment campaign, 51% were identified from electronic medical record-based methods. Patient portal messaging, an electronic medical record-based method, resulted in the highest response rate (4%), screening visit completion rate (37%), and randomization rate (21%) among these eight methods. Electronic medical record-based methods ($60) were more cost-effective per response than non-electronic medical record-based methods ($107). Electronic-based methods, including patient portal messaging and Facebook, had the highest proportion of White individuals screened (52% and 60%). Direct mail to non-active patient portal increased enrollment of traditionally under-represented groups, including both women and African Americans.

conclusionAn electronic medical record-based recruitment strategy that utilized the electronic medical record for participant identification and postal mailing for participant outreach was cost-effective and increased participation of under-represented groups. This hybrid strategy represents a promising approach to improve the timely execution and broad generalizability of future clinical trials.

Indexed as

GoutPatient PortalsPatient SelectionAdultCross-Over StudiesDietary Approaches To Stop HypertensionElectronicsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicUric AcidUric Acidclinical trialsdisparitieselectronic medical recordsrandomized control trialRecruitment methods

Identifiers

PMID32933342
PMCPMC7878277
OpenAlexW3087187075

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.