ReviewBMJ open2023
Delivering clinical studies of exercise in the COVID-19 pandemic: challenges and adaptations using a feasibility trial of isometric exercise to treat hypertension as an exemplar.
Review in BMJ open, 2023. 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, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- A community-based rehabilitation package following hip fracture: FEMuR III a multi-centre RCT, economic and process evaluation.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2025Trial
- Trial
- Article
- Experiences, acceptability and feasibility of an isometric exercise intervention for stage 1 hypertension: embedded qualitative study in a randomised controlled feasibility trial.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted on the delivery of clinical trials in the UK, posing complicated organisational challenges and requiring adaptations, especially to exercise intervention studies based in the community. We aim to identify the challenges of public involvement, recruitment, consent, follow-up, intervention and the healthcare professional delivery aspects of a feasibility study of exercise in hypertensive primary care patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. While these challenges elicited many reactive changes which were specific to, and only relevant in the context of 'lockdown' requirements, some of the protocol developments that came about during this unprecedented period have great potential to inform more permanent practices for carrying out this type of research. To this end, we detail the necessary adaptations to many elements of the feasibility study and critically reflect on our approach to redesigning and amending this ongoing project in order to maintain its viability to date. Some of the more major protocol adaptations, such as moving the study to remote means wherever possible, had further unforeseen and undesirable outcomes (eg, additional appointments) with regards to extra resources required to deliver the study. However, other changes improved the efficiency of the study, such as the remote informed consent and the direct advertising with prescreening survey. The adaptations to the study have clear links to the UK Plan for the future of research delivery. It is intended that this specific documentation and critical evaluation will help those planning or delivering similar studies to do so in a more resource efficient and effective way. In conclusion, it is essential to reflect and respond with protocol changes in the current climate in order to deliver clinical research successfully, as in the case of this particular study.
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.