Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37095697›Full record

ArticleClinical trials (London, England)2023

Dynamic data-enabled stratified sampling for trial invitations with application in NHS-Galleri.

Adam R Brentnall, Chris Mathews, Sandy Beare, Jennifer Ching, Michelle Sleeth, Peter Sasieni

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical trials (London, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05611632 (A Randomized, Controlled Trial to Assess the Clinical Utility of a Multi-cancer Early Detection), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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.

NCT05611632 naactive not recruitingnot on this map

A Randomized, Controlled Trial to Assess the Clinical Utility of a Multi-cancer Early Detection (MCED) Test for Population Screening in the United Kingdom (UK) When Added to Standard of Care

TypeinterventionalSponsorGRAIL, Inc.Ran2021 to 2031Enrolled142,318ConditionsCancerArmsMulti-cancer early detection test (Galleri test)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. More efficient, smaller multicancer screening trials.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2025
    Article
  4. Review
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

6 authors.

Adam R BrentnallWolfson Institute of Population Health, Centre for Evaluation and Methods, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6327-4357
Chris MathewsThe Cancer Research UK and King's College London Cancer Prevention Trials Unit, Kings College London, London, UK.
Sandy BeareThe Cancer Research UK and King's College London Cancer Prevention Trials Unit, Kings College London, London, UK.
Jennifer ChingThe Cancer Research UK and King's College London Cancer Prevention Trials Unit, Kings College London, London, UK.
Michelle SleethThe Cancer Research UK and King's College London Cancer Prevention Trials Unit, Kings College London, London, UK.
Peter SasieniThe Cancer Research UK and King's College London Cancer Prevention Trials Unit, Kings College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1509-8744

Funding

Cancer Research UK 16893Cancer Research UK 25356
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundParticipants of health research studies such as cancer screening trials usually have better health than the target population. Data-enabled recruitment strategies might be used to help minimise healthy volunteer effects on study power and improve equity.

methodsA computer algorithm was developed to help target trial invitations. It assumes participants are recruited from distinct sites (such as different physical locations or periods in time) that are served by clusters (such as general practitioners in England, or geographical areas), and the population may be split into defined groups (such as age and sex bands). The problem is to decide the number of people to invite from each group, such that all recruitment slots are filled, healthy volunteer effects are accounted for, and equity is achieved through representation in sufficient numbers of all major societal and ethnic groups. A linear programme was formulated for this problem.

resultsThe optimisation problem was solved dynamically for invitations to the NHS-Galleri trial (ISRCTN91431511). This multi-cancer screening trial aimed to recruit 140,000 participants from areas in England over 10 months. Public data sources were used for objective function weights, and constraints. Invitations were sent by sampling according to lists generated by the algorithm. To help achieve equity the algorithm tilts the invitation sampling distribution towards groups that are less likely to join. To mitigate healthy volunteer effects, it requires a minimum expected event rate of the primary outcome in the trial.

conclusionOur invitation algorithm is a novel data-enabled approach to recruitment that is designed to address healthy volunteer effects and inequity in health research studies. It could be adapted for use in other trials or research studies.

Indexed as

Research DesignState MedicineClinical Trials as TopicEnglandHumansCancerequityinvitationsrecruitmentscreening

Identifiers

PMID37095697
PMCPMC10338700

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.