Observational studyBMJ open2024
Reasons for unsuccessful recruitment of children with atopic dermatitis in primary care in the Netherlands to a cohort study with an embedded pragmatic, randomised controlled open-label trial: a survey.
Observational study in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Rotterdam Eczema Study was an observational cohort study with an embedded pragmatic randomised controlled open-label trial. It was conducted in children with atopic dermatitis (AD) in the Dutch primary care system. The objective of the trial was to determine whether a potent topical corticosteroid (TCS) is more effective than a low-potency TCS.
objectiveWe are aiming to communicate transparently about the poor recruitment for the trial part and to explore the reasons why recruitment was weak.
designWe used a survey to find out what patients in the cohort did when they experienced a flare-up.
methodsDescriptive statistics were used to present the baseline characteristics of participants in the trial and the results of the survey.
resultsIn total, 367 patients were included in the cohort. Of these, 32 were randomly assigned to a trial treatment; they had a median age of 4.0 years (IQR 2.0-9.8). A total of 69 of the 86 children (80.2%) who could participate in the survey responded. 39 (56.5%) suffered a flare-up during the follow-up (making them potentially eligible for inclusion in the trial). 26 out of 39 (66.7%) increased their use of an emollient and/or TCS themselves. Only 12 of the 39 (30.7%) contacted their general practitioner (GP) as instructed in the study protocol, but 8 out of these 12 did not meet the inclusion criteria for the trial.
conclusionThe main reason why cohort participants did not take part in the trial was that they did not contact their GPs when they experienced an AD flare-up. Furthermore, the majority of patients who contacted their GPs did not match the inclusion criteria of the trial. We expect that the lessons learnt from this study will be useful when developing future studies of children with AD in primary care.
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.