ReviewBMJ oncology2023
Boosting and broadening recruitment to UK cancer trials: towards a blueprint for action.
Review in BMJ oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- COVID-19's disruptions to cancer care pathways and widening of health inequalities in the UK: a systematic review.BMC health services research · 2026Pooled it
- Motivations and experiences of patients with respiratory disease and their caregivers in a multinational trial of mirtazapine for severe breathlessness: a qualitative study (BETTER-B).BMC pulmonary medicine · 2025Trial
- Feasibility Randomised Controlled Trial of a New Digital Intervention ('FRAME') to Promote Resilience in Women Treated for Primary Breast Cancer.Psycho-oncology · 2025Trial
- Article
- Understanding Barriers and Facilitators for Ethnic Minority Groups to Audio Recording Recruitment Discussions in Clinical Trials: A Participatory Approach to Improving Informed Consent and Participation.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- The potential clinical utility of Whole Genome Sequencing for patients with cancer: evaluation of a regional implementation of the 100,000 Genomes Project.British journal of cancer · 2024Article
- Closing the gaps in recruitment and retention in cancer trials: sufficient evidence but poor implementation.BMJ oncology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recruitment and retention in cancer trials are long-standing issues, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. The UK National Institute of Health Research and leading clinicians have emphasised the urgency to achieve and surpass prepandemic levels of participation. Data from a recent UK trial demonstrated the impact of COVID-19 and highlighted factors that limited recruitment. In response to this worldwide problem, studies have identified strategies for remediation at the levels of funding, the research environment, study design and trial team-related aspects, yet evidence of progress is lacking. Equality, diversity and inclusivity have become central to UK health and social policy during the 2000s. The need for greater inclusivity in trials has become a particular concern for cancer researchers and funders in the UK and in the USA, in recognition of potential bias in results. In the UK trials, the lack of standardised recording of ethnicity data renders interpretation difficult and caution is required in comparisons with the USA. Recently, the focus of concern has shifted away from the impact of deprivation and low socioeconomic status on trial participation. Barriers created by these factors and their frequent intersection with ethnicity should not be overlooked. The UK has adopted an advisory approach to broadening recruitment, publishing policy documents, guidance and toolkits. In the USA, by contrast, action on inclusion is increasingly mandated. Within the UK paradigm, the cancer research community is strongly encouraged to adopt a coordinated approach towards standardised digital data collection and embed and evaluate innovative, cocreated, locally relevant strategies.
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.