SynthesisNeurology2024
Trial Participation in Neurodegenerative Diseases: Barriers and Facilitators: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Neurology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Attrition and discontinuation in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis clinical trials: a meta-analysis.Journal of neurology · 2024Pooled it
- Implementation of a novel strategy to increase participation of Black and Hispanic people in parkinsonism research.Journal of Parkinson's disease · 2026Article
- Translational Paradox of Triplet Repeat Expansion Disorders: Synthesizing Clinical Trial Failures to Guide Future Therapeutics.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026Review
- Development and validation of the first needs-based quality of life measure for individuals with manifest Huntington's disease.Journal of neurology · 2026Article
- Inclusion of older adults in UK clinical research-the National Institute for Health and Care Research Year of Birth Project.Age and ageing · 2026Article
- Supporting frontline staff in frontotemporal degeneration research.Frontiers in neurology · 2026Article
- Pharmacological Interventions for Excoriation Behaviors in Alzheimer's Disease: An Empty Systematic Review of Clinical Trials.Clinical neuropsychiatry · 2025Review
- "Recommendations for clinical study protocols for immune and inflammatory profiling in Parkinson's disease".NPJ Parkinson's disease · 2025Review
- Differences in Parkinson's Disease Populations: Teaching Hospitals Versus Other Settings and Implications for Clinical Trials.Movement disorders : official journal of the Movement Disorder Society · 2025Article
- Application of the ENCALS predictive survival model in assessing the effect of the 24/44 inclusion criteria in FORTITUDE-ALS.Journal of neuromuscular diseases · 2025Article
- Observational
- Exclusions affect representativeness of Alzheimer's disease trial participants.Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesClinical trials in neurodegenerative diseases often encounter selective enrollment and under-representation of certain patient populations. This delays drug development and substantially limits the generalizability of clinical trial results. To inform recruitment and retention strategies, and to better understand the generalizability of clinical trial populations, we investigated which factors drive participation.
methodsWe reviewed the literature systematically to identify barriers to and facilitators of trial participation in 4 major neurodegenerative disease areas: Alzheimer disease, Parkinson disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and Huntington disease. Inclusion criteria included original research articles published in a peer-reviewed journal and evaluating barriers to and/or facilitators of participation in a clinical trial with a drug therapy (either symptomatic or disease-modifying). The Critical Appraisal Skills Program checklist for qualitative studies was used to assess and ensure the quality of the studies. Qualitative thematic analyses were employed to identify key enablers of trial participation. Subsequently, we pooled quantitative data of each enabler using meta-analytical models.
resultsOverall, we identified 36 studies, enrolling a cumulative sample size of 5,269 patients, caregivers, and health care professionals. In total, the thematic analysis resulted in 31 unique enablers of trial participation; the key factors were patient-related (own health benefit and altruism), study-related (treatment and study burden), and health care professional-related (information availability and patient-physician relationship). When meta-analyzed across studies, responders reported that the reason to participate was mainly driven by (1) the relationship with clinical staff (70% of the respondents; 95% CI 53%-83%), (2) the availability of study information (67%, 95% CI 38%-87%), and (3) the use or absence of a placebo or sham-control arm (53% 95% CI 32%-72%). There was, however, significant heterogeneity between studies (all DISCUSSION: We have provided a comprehensive list of reasons why patients participate in clinical trials for neurodegenerative diseases. These results may help to increase participation rates, better inform patients, and facilitate patient-centric approaches, thereby potentially reducing selection mechanisms and improving generalizability of trial results.
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.