Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36819805›Full record

ArticleEcancermedicalscience2022

Audit of screen failure in 15 randomised studies from a low and middle-income country.

Deevyashali Parekh, Vijay M Patil, Kavita Nawale, Vanita Noronha, Nandini Menon, Sucheta More, Supriya Goud, Srushti Jain, Vijayalakshmi Mathrudev, Zoya Peelay and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecancermedicalscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
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.

Deevyashali ParekhThese authors contributed equally.
Vijay M PatilThese authors contributed equally.
Kavita NawaleThese authors contributed equally.
Vanita NoronhaDepartment of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre and HBNI, Parel, Mumbai 400012, India.
Nandini MenonDepartment of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre and HBNI, Parel, Mumbai 400012, India.
Sucheta MoreDepartment of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre and HBNI, Parel, Mumbai 400012, India.
Supriya GoudDepartment of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre and HBNI, Parel, Mumbai 400012, India.
Srushti JainDepartment of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre and HBNI, Parel, Mumbai 400012, India.
Vijayalakshmi MathrudevDepartment of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre and HBNI, Parel, Mumbai 400012, India.
Zoya PeelayDepartment of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre and HBNI, Parel, Mumbai 400012, India.
Sachin DhumalDepartment of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre and HBNI, Parel, Mumbai 400012, India.
Shweta JogdhankarDepartment of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre and HBNI, Parel, Mumbai 400012, India.
Kumar PrabhashDepartment of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre and HBNI, Parel, Mumbai 400012, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Growth and development in patient management occurs via randomised studies. Screen failure is a significant hurdle while conducting randomised studies. There is limited data available from low and middle-income countries about factors resulting in screen failure. Hence, this audit was performed to identify the proportion of patients who screen failed and to elucidate reasons for the same. Methods: This was an audit of 15 randomised studies performed by medical oncology solid tumour unit II of Tata Memorial Centre. The screening logs of these studies were acquired. From the screening logs, data regarding the number of patients who had screen failed & reason for the same were obtained. Descriptive statistics were performed. Results: A total of 7,481 patients were screened for 15 randomised clinical studies. Out of these, 3,666 (49.0%) patients were enrolled into trials and 3,815 (51.0%) screen failed. The most common reason for screen failure was 'not meeting inclusion criteria' (54.9%) followed by declining to take treatment (22.2%). Other factors that affect enrolment were 'not willing to stay in the locality of the trial site' (6.2%), being recruited in other studies (3.7%), poor performance status (PS) (3.4%), non-compliance (2.2%), meeting exclusion criteria (0.9%) and 'other' (6.5%). Conclusion: The commonest causes of screen failure in lower and middle-income countries are non-meeting of inclusion criteria followed by declining to take treatment, not willing to stay in locality of trial site, recruited into other studies, poor PS, non-compliance, meeting exclusion criteria & 'other'. This information would help analysing and hence planning of newer strategies to decrease the rate of screen failure.

Indexed as

clinical trialsepidemiologyhead and neck canceroncologysolid tumourstatistics

Identifiers

PMID36819805
PMCPMC9934872

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.