Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33482396›Full record

Trial reportContemporary clinical trials2021

The many faces of recruitment in a randomized controlled trial.

Bernardine M Pinto, Shira I Dunsiger

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Contemporary clinical trials, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of a self-directed online psychosocial intervention for women with metastatic breast cancer: Finding My Way-Advanced.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Physical Activity Adoption and Maintenance Among Breast Cancer Survivors: A Randomized Trial of Peer Mentoring.Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine · 2022
    Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

2 authors.

Bernardine M PintoCollege of Nursing, University of South Carolina, 1601 Greene Street, Rm 302B, Columbia, SC 29208, USA. Electronic address: pintob@mailbox.sc.edu.
Shira I DunsigerCenter for Health Promotion and Health Equity, Department of Behavioral and Social Sciences, Brown University, School of Public Health, Box G-S121-8, Providence, RI 02912, USA.

Funding

Peers Promoting Exercise Adoption and Maintenance among Cancer SurvivorsR01CA183849 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA AT COLUMBIA · PI PINTO, BERNARDINE M. · 2015 to 2020
$2.7M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA183849
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThoughtful approaches to study recruitment are a critical step in designing and implementing randomized controlled trials. Delays and challenges in recruitment can be costly and can result in smaller than proposed sample sizes which have downstream effects, such as underpowered studies. PURPOSE: The current study evaluated recruitment methods (e.g., targeted mailings, brochures/flyers, social media) and their relationship to eligibility, randomization, participant characteristics and retention at end of a randomized controlled trial of physical activity adoption and maintenance among breast cancer survivors.

methodsScreening data from 874 women was analyzed for recruitment method, study eligibility, randomization and retention through end of treatment. Costs per randomized participant were calculated by recruitment method. Baseline participant characteristics were compared across recruitment methods and between randomized and retained participants.

resultsRates of participant accrual from eligibility screening through randomization differed statistically significantly depending on recruitment method (p < .05). The highest randomization rates were obtained via targeted mailings (88.2%) and lowest via brochure/flyer (0.4%). Among the randomized sample, there were no differences in demographic characteristics between recruitment methods, however, there were differences within the targeted mailings category (registries vs. organizational recruitment). There were statistically significant differences in costs between recruitment methods (p < .001) with lowest (non-negligible) cost being targeted mailings.

conclusionsThe current RCT of breast cancer survivors successfully recruited and retained participants, highlighting the need to combine recruitment methods to achieve accrual goals. Recruitment methods differed substantially in their cost and their ability to attract individuals who would ultimately be randomized.

Indexed as

Cancer SurvivorsSocial MediaFemaleHumansMass ScreeningPatient SelectionSurvivorsBreast cancer survivorsRandomized controlled trialRecruitmentRecruitment costs

Identifiers

PMID33482396
PMCPMC10202098

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.