Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35346320›Full record

SynthesisTrials2022

Retention in RCTs of physical rehabilitation for adults with frailty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Heather K O'Grady, Christopher Farley, Alyson Takaoka, Elisa Mayens, Jackie Bosch, Lyn Turkstra, Michelle E Kho

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Trials, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 43% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Use of advance letters to enhance participant retention in a clinical trial.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2026
    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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Heather K O'GradySchool of Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, 1400 Main St. W., Hamilton, ON, L8S 1C7, Canada. ogradyh@mcmaster.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1771-1824
Christopher FarleySchool of Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, 1400 Main St. W., Hamilton, ON, L8S 1C7, Canada.
Alyson TakaokaDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Elisa MayensPhysiotherapy Department, St. Joseph's Healthcare, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Jackie BoschSchool of Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, 1400 Main St. W., Hamilton, ON, L8S 1C7, Canada.
Lyn TurkstraSchool of Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, 1400 Main St. W., Hamilton, ON, L8S 1C7, Canada.
Michelle E KhoSchool of Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, 1400 Main St. W., Hamilton, ON, L8S 1C7, Canada.
McMaster University · CASt. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton · CAImpact · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPhysical rehabilitation (PR) interventions can improve physical function for adults with frailty; however, participant retention rates in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are unknown. Objective is to summarize participant retention rates in RCTs of PR for adults with frailty. Design is a systematic review and meta-analysis (DOI:10.17605/OSF.IO/G6XR2). Participants are adults ≥ 18 years with frailty. Setting consists of inpatient, outpatient and community-based interventions. Intervention includes any PR intervention.

methodsWe searched 7 electronic databases from inception to April 15, 2020 for published RCTs. Our primary outcome was participant retention rate to primary outcome measurement. Secondary outcomes included retention by study group, participant retention to intervention completion, reported reasons for attrition and reported strategies for maximizing retention. We completed screening, data extraction and risk of bias (ROB) assessments independently and in duplicate. We conducted a meta-analysis, calculating retention rates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using fixed or random-effects models, as appropriate.

resultsWe included 21 RCTs, enrolling 1685 adults with frailty (median age 82.5 years (79.0, 82.2), 59.8% female (57.5, 69.8)). Twenty RCTs reported retention data, of which 90.0% (n = 18) had high ROB. The pooled participant retention rate to primary outcome measurement was 85.0% [95%CI (80.0, 90.0), I

conclusionsIn this review of 21 RCTs of PR, we identified acceptable rates of retention for adults with frailty. High retention in PR interventions appears to be feasible in this population; however, our results are limited by a high ROB and heterogeneity.

Indexed as

FrailtyAdultAged, 80 and overBiasFemaleHumansMaleFrailtyPhysical rehabilitationPhysiotherapyRandomized controlled trialsRetention

Identifiers

PMID35346320
PMCPMC8961921
OpenAlexW4220996404

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.