Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37316945›Full record

SynthesisTrials2023

Participant retention in paediatric randomised controlled trials published in six major journals 2015-2019: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Daisy M Gaunt, Cat Papastavrou Brooks, Hugo Pedder, Esther Crawley, Jeremy Horwood, Chris Metcalfe

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Trials, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

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

  1. Randomized pilot study comparing standard vs high-calorie feeding in infants with Neonatal Opioid Withdrawal Syndrome.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2026
    Article
  2. Observational
  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

6 authors.

Daisy M GauntPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK. daisy.gaunt@bristol.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1253-307X
Cat Papastavrou BrooksPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.
Hugo PedderPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.
Esther CrawleyPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.
Jeremy HorwoodPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.
Chris MetcalfePopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.

Funding

Research Trainees Coordinating Centre NIHR Doctoral Research Fellowship (NIHR300219)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe factors which influence participant retention in paediatric randomised controlled trials are under-researched. Retention may be more challenging due to child developmental stages, involving additional participants, and proxy-reporting of outcomes. This systematic review and meta-analysis explores the factors which may influence retention in paediatric trials.

methodsUsing the MEDLINE database, paediatric randomised controlled trials published between 2015 and 2019 were identified from six general and specialist high-impact factor medical journals. The review outcome was participant retention for each reviewed trial's primary outcome. Context (e.g. population, disease) and design (e.g. length of trial) factors were extracted. Retention was examined for each context and design factor in turn, with evidence for an association being determined by a univariate random-effects meta-regression analysis.

resultsNinety-four trials were included, and the median total retention was 0.92 (inter-quartile range 0.83 to 0.98). Higher estimates of retention were seen for trials with five or more follow-up assessments before the primary outcome, those less than 6 months between randomisation and primary outcome, and those that used an inactive data collection method. Trials involving children aged 11 and over had the higher estimated retention compared with those involving younger children. Those trials which did not involve other participants also had higher retention, than those where they were involved. There was also evidence that a trial which used an active or placebo control treatment had higher estimated retention, than treatment-as-usual. Retention increased if at least one engagement method was used. Unlike reviews of trials including all ages of participants, we did not find any association between retention and the number of treatment groups, size of trial, or type of treatment.

conclusionsPublished paediatric RCTs rarely report the use of specific modifiable factors that improve retention. Including multiple, regular follow-ups with participants before the primary outcome may reduce attrition. Retention may be highest when the primary outcome is collected up to 6 months after a participant is recruited. Our findings suggest that qualitative research into improving retention when trials involve multiple participants such as young people, and their caregivers or teachers would be worthwhile. Those designing paediatric trials also need to consider the use of appropriate engagement methods. RESEARCH ON RESEARCH (ROR) REGISTRY: https://ror-hub.org/study/2561.

Indexed as

Periodicals as TopicAdolescentChildDatabases, FactualHumansPublicationsQualitative ResearchRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRegistriesAttritionMeta-analysisPaediatricRandomised controlled trialsRetentionSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID37316945
PMCPMC10265847

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.