Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38830181›Full record

SynthesisNeurology2024

Trial Participation in Neurodegenerative Diseases: Barriers and Facilitators: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Daphne N Weemering, Anita Beelen, Tessa Kliest, Lucie A G van Leeuwen, Leonard H van den Berg, Ruben P A van Eijk

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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.

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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. 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.

Daphne N WeemeringFrom the Department of Neurology (D.N.W., T.K., L.A.G.v.L., L.H.v.d.B., R.P.A.v.E.), Department of Rehabilitation, Physical Therapy Science & Sports (A.B.), and Center of Excellence for Rehabilitation Medicine (A.B.), UMC Utrecht Brain Center, University Medical Center Utrecht; De Hoogstraat Rehabilitation (A.B.), Utrecht; and Biostatistics & Research Support (R.P.A.v.E.), Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands.ORCID 0009-0005-4182-3294
Anita BeelenFrom the Department of Neurology (D.N.W., T.K., L.A.G.v.L., L.H.v.d.B., R.P.A.v.E.), Department of Rehabilitation, Physical Therapy Science & Sports (A.B.), and Center of Excellence for Rehabilitation Medicine (A.B.), UMC Utrecht Brain Center, University Medical Center Utrecht; De Hoogstraat Rehabilitation (A.B.), Utrecht; and Biostatistics & Research Support (R.P.A.v.E.), Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-1269-0710
Tessa KliestFrom the Department of Neurology (D.N.W., T.K., L.A.G.v.L., L.H.v.d.B., R.P.A.v.E.), Department of Rehabilitation, Physical Therapy Science & Sports (A.B.), and Center of Excellence for Rehabilitation Medicine (A.B.), UMC Utrecht Brain Center, University Medical Center Utrecht; De Hoogstraat Rehabilitation (A.B.), Utrecht; and Biostatistics & Research Support (R.P.A.v.E.), Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Lucie A G van LeeuwenFrom the Department of Neurology (D.N.W., T.K., L.A.G.v.L., L.H.v.d.B., R.P.A.v.E.), Department of Rehabilitation, Physical Therapy Science & Sports (A.B.), and Center of Excellence for Rehabilitation Medicine (A.B.), UMC Utrecht Brain Center, University Medical Center Utrecht; De Hoogstraat Rehabilitation (A.B.), Utrecht; and Biostatistics & Research Support (R.P.A.v.E.), Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Leonard H van den BergFrom the Department of Neurology (D.N.W., T.K., L.A.G.v.L., L.H.v.d.B., R.P.A.v.E.), Department of Rehabilitation, Physical Therapy Science & Sports (A.B.), and Center of Excellence for Rehabilitation Medicine (A.B.), UMC Utrecht Brain Center, University Medical Center Utrecht; De Hoogstraat Rehabilitation (A.B.), Utrecht; and Biostatistics & Research Support (R.P.A.v.E.), Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6559-3965
Ruben P A van EijkFrom the Department of Neurology (D.N.W., T.K., L.A.G.v.L., L.H.v.d.B., R.P.A.v.E.), Department of Rehabilitation, Physical Therapy Science & Sports (A.B.), and Center of Excellence for Rehabilitation Medicine (A.B.), UMC Utrecht Brain Center, University Medical Center Utrecht; De Hoogstraat Rehabilitation (A.B.), Utrecht; and Biostatistics & Research Support (R.P.A.v.E.), Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-7132-5967

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Clinical Trials as TopicNeurodegenerative DiseasesPatient ParticipationHumansPatient Selection

Identifiers

PMID38830181
PMCPMC11244742

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.