Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33127384›Full record

ArticleJournal of geriatric oncology2021

Age specific recruitment and retention to a large multicentre observational breast cancer trial in older women: The Age Gap Trial.

Annaliza Todd, Charlene Martin, Jenna Morgan, Esther Herbert, Mike Bradburn, Maria Burton, Malcolm W R Reed, Tim Chater, Kirsty Pemberton, Stephen Walters and 7 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of geriatric oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational cohort study to determine the degree and causes of variation in the rate of surgery or primary endocrine therapy in older women with operable breast cancer.European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology · 2021
    Observational
  6. Observational
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

17 authors at 8 institutions in 2 countries.

Annaliza ToddDepartment of Oncology and Metabolism, University of Sheffield Medical School, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield S10 2RX, United Kingdom.
Charlene MartinDepartment of Oncology and Metabolism, University of Sheffield Medical School, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield S10 2RX, United Kingdom.
Jenna MorganDepartment of Oncology and Metabolism, University of Sheffield Medical School, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield S10 2RX, United Kingdom.
Esther HerbertClinical Trials Research Unit, School for Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, United Kingdom.
Mike BradburnClinical Trials Research Unit, School for Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, United Kingdom.
Maria BurtonCollege of Health, Wellbeing and Life Sciences, Department of Allied Health Professions, Sheffield Hallam University, Collegiate Cresent Campus, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
Malcolm W R ReedBrighton and Sussex Medical School, Falmer, United Kingdom.
Tim ChaterClinical Trials Research Unit, School for Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, United Kingdom.
Kirsty PembertonClinical Trials Research Unit, School for Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, United Kingdom.
Stephen WaltersClinical Trials Research Unit, School for Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, United Kingdom.
Kwok Leung CheungUniversity of Nottingham, Royal Derby Hospital, Uttoxeter Road, Derby DE22 3DT, United Kingdom.
Riccardo A AudisioDepartment of Surgery, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, 41345 Göteborg, Sweden.
Alistair RingThe Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Thompson RobinsonDepartment of Cardiovascular Sciences and NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, University of Leicester, Cardiovascular Research Centre, Glenfield General Hospital, Leicester, LE3 9QP, United Kingdom.
Tracy GreenYorkshire and Humber Consumer Research Panel, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
Jacqui GathYorkshire and Humber Consumer Research Panel, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
Lynda WyldDepartment of Oncology and Metabolism, University of Sheffield Medical School, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield S10 2RX, United Kingdom. Electronic address: l.wyld@sheffield.ac.uk.
University of Sheffield · GBHumber Teaching NHS Foundation Trust · GBBrighton and Sussex Medical School · GBRoyal Marsden Hospital · GBSahlgrenska University Hospital · SESheffield Hallam University · GBUniversity of Leicester · GBUniversity of Nottingham · GB

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-1209-10071
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionRecruitment and retention are two of the most important factors in successfully running clinical trials. Many trials encounter problems with both, causing delays or preventing study progress. These issues are greater in older adults and patients with cancer. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe assessed recruitment and retention in a large, multicentre, observational breast cancer study in older female patients (>70 years, N = 3440). Data collected by the Age Gap study were used to assess rates of, and reasons for, patients not being recruited or retained. Statistical analysis assessed the impact of age as a predictor of recruitment and retention.

resultsBetween February 2013 and June 2018, 6876 patients were screened and 3456 were consented across 56 United Kingdom (UK) breast units. Reasons for non-recruitment included ineligibility, clinician issues, staffing resource issues, patients' lack of interest or time and trial burden. In comparison with the age demographics of patients with breast cancer in the UK, women aged 70-75 years were over-represented compared to older age groups. Logistic regression demonstrated that older age significantly reduced the odds of consent (OR = 0.96, CI: 0.938-0.982; p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that age (p < 0.001), markers of poor functional ability (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (p = 0.011)) and instrumental activities of daily living (p = 0.026) were significant predictors of withdrawal. DISCUSSION: This study has demonstrated that selection and attrition bias for age are apparent despite a range of 'age friendly' study design measures. Exploration of the underlying reasons for this and development of measures to address this should be the focus of further research.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsActivities of Daily LivingAgedFemaleHumansLogistic ModelsResearch DesignUnited KingdomAge biasAge distributionBreast cancerClinical trialRecruitmentRetention

Identifiers

PMID33127384
PMCPMC8205116
OpenAlexW3095863269

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.