Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36417312›Full record

Trial reportBJS open2022

Recruiting to surgical trials in the emergency setting: using a mixed methods study to understand clinician and patient perspectives.

Maureen Twiddy, Jacqueline Birtwistle, Amanda Edmondson, Julie Croft, Kathryn Gordon, David Meads, Dermot Burke, Ben Griffiths, Azmina Rose, Peter Sagar and 3 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BJS open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

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

  1. Benefits and Burdens of Research Participation: A Mixed Methods Systematic Review in Palliative and End-of-Life Care.Journal of hospice and palliative nursing : JHPN : the official journal of the Hospice and Palliative Nurses Association · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. 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

13 authors.

Maureen TwiddyHull York Medical School, Institute of Clinical and Applied Health Research, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Hull, Hull, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3794-1598
Jacqueline BirtwistleDepartment of Palliative Care, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Amanda EdmondsonDepartment of Psychology, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK.
Julie CroftLeeds Clinical Trials Research Unit, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Kathryn GordonLeeds Clinical Trials Research Unit, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
David MeadsDepartment of Palliative Care, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Dermot BurkeDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, St James's University Hospital, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4342-7464
Ben GriffithsDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
Azmina RosePatient and Public Involvement Representative for the LaCeS Trial.
Peter SagarDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, St James's University Hospital, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.
Deborah StockenLeeds Clinical Trials Research Unit, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Julia M B BrownLeeds Clinical Trials Research Unit, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Deena HarjiLeeds Clinical Trials Research Unit, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8493-3312

Funding

Cancer Research UK 25447Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUndertaking randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in emergency surgical settings is associated with methodological and practical challenges. This study explored patients' and clinicians' perspectives associated with the conduct of an RCT comparing laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery in the acute setting.

methodsAll eligible patients screened and enrolled for the 'Laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery in the acute setting (LaCeS)' multicentre, randomized clinical feasibility trial in five UK NHS Trusts were invited to respond to a survey. Patients and healthcare professionals were also invited to take part in semi-structured interviews. Survey and interviews explored the acceptability of the feasibility trial. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using thematic analysis. Survey data were analysed descriptively to assess patient views of the trial and intervention.

resultsOut of 72 patients enrolled for the LaCeS RCT, survey data were collected from 28 patients (38.9 per cent), and interviews were conducted with 16 patients and 14 healthcare professionals. Thirteen out of 28 patients (46 per cent) had treatment preferences but these were not strong enough to deter participation. Twelve of the patients interviewed believed that their surgeon preferred laparoscopic surgery, but this did not deter them from participating in the trial. Half of the surgeons interviewed expressed the view that laparoscopic surgery was of benefit in this setting, but recognized that the need for research evidence outweighed their personal treatment preferences. Eight of the 14 recruiters reported that the emergency setting affected recruitment, especially in centres with fewer recruiting surgeons. Interviewees reported that recruitment was helped significantly by using surgical trainees to consent patients.

conclusionThis study identified specific challenges for the LaCeS trial design to address and adds significant insights to our understanding of recruiting to emergency surgical trials more broadly.

Indexed as

Colorectal SurgerySurgeonsAttitude of Health PersonnelHumansPatient SelectionQualitative Research

Identifiers

PMID36417312
PMCPMC9683391

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.