ArticleTrials2022
Generalizability and reach of a randomized controlled trial to improve oral health among home care recipients: comparing participants and nonparticipants at baseline and during follow-up.
Article in Trials, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Barriers, challenges, and facilitators in oral health care for older adults in home-based care: stakeholder perspectives from germany.BMC geriatrics · 2026Article
- Generalizability of Randomized Clinical Trial Outcomes for Diabetes Control Resulting From Bariatric Surgery.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2024Article
- Recruitment and retention challenges and strategies in randomized controlled trials of psychosocial interventions for children with cancer and their parents: a collective case study.European journal of pediatrics · 2023Article
- Disparities in the burden of gastrointestinal diseases: a comprehensive analysis of data from randomized clinical trials from 2000-2023.Annals of gastroenterologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe generalizability of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with a low response can be limited by systematic differences between participants and nonparticipants. This participation bias, however, is rarely investigated because data on nonparticipants is usually not available. The purpose of this article is to compare all participants and nonparticipants of a RCT to improve oral health among home care recipients at baseline and during follow-up using claims data.
methodsSeven German statutory health and long-term care insurance funds invited 9656 home care recipients to participate in the RCT MundPflege. Claims data for all participants (n = 527, 5.5% response) and nonparticipants (n = 9129) were analyzed. Associations between trial participation and sex, age, care dependency, number of Elixhauser diseases, and dementia, as well as nursing, medical, and dental care utilization at baseline, were investigated using multivariable logistic regression. Associations between trial participation and the probability of (a) moving into a nursing home, (b) being hospitalized, and (c) death during 1 year of follow-up were examined via Cox proportional hazards regressions, controlling for baseline variables.
resultsAt baseline, trial participation was positively associated with male sex (odds ratio 1.29 [95% confidence interval 1.08-1.54]), high (vs. low 1.46 [1.15-1.86]) care dependency, receiving occasional in-kind benefits to relieve caring relatives (1.45 [1.15-1.84]), having a referral by a general practitioner to a medical specialist (1.62 [1.21-2.18]), and dental care utilization (2.02 [1.67-2.45]). It was negatively associated with being 75-84 (vs. < 60 0.67 [0.50-0.90]) and 85 + (0.50 [0.37-0.69]) years old. For morbidity, hospitalizations, and formal, respite, short-term, and day or night care, no associations were found. During follow-up, participants were less likely to move into a nursing home than nonparticipants (hazard ratio 0.50 [0.32-0.79]). For hospitalizations and mortality, no associations were found.
conclusionsFor half of the comparisons, differences between participants and nonparticipants were observed. The RCT's generalizability is limited, but to a smaller extent than one would expect because of the low response. Routine data provide a valuable source for investigating potential differences between trial participants and nonparticipants, which might be used by future RCTs to evaluate the generalizability of their findings.
trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register DRKS00013517 . Retrospectively registered on June 11, 2018.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.