Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39886495›Full record

ReviewBMJ oncology2023

Boosting and broadening recruitment to UK cancer trials: towards a blueprint for action.

Veronica Nanton, Richard T Bryan, Anne M Pope, Ana Hughes, Kieran Jefferson, James W F Catto, Allen Knight, Jean Gallagher, Harriet Paige Mintz, Sarah J Pirrie and 4 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

14 authors.

Veronica NantonHealth Sciences, University of Warwick Warwick Medical School, Coventry, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9553-822X
Richard T BryanBladder Cancer Research Centre, Institute of Cancer & Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2853-4293
Anne M PopeCancer Research Clinical Trials Unit, Institute of Cancer & Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Ana HughesCancer Research Clinical Trials Unit, Institute of Cancer & Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Kieran JeffersonDepartment of Urology, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust, Coventry, UK.
James W F CattoAcademic Units of Urology and Molecular Oncology, The University of Sheffield Department of Oncology and Metabolism, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7314-8204
Allen KnightPatient representative, Tetbury, Bradford, UK.
Jean GallagherPatient representative, Tetbury, Bradford, UK.
Harriet Paige MintzBirmingham Medical School, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1583-6268
Sarah J PirrieCancer Research Clinical Trials Unit, Institute of Cancer & Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2894-2230
Wenyu LiuThe Translational Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford Nuffield Department of Population Health, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0009-0002-3007-5196
Annie YoungClinical Trials Unit, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6611-6653
Prashant PatelDepartment of Urology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2882-5990
Nicholas D JamesThe Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7314-8204

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

bladder cancer

Identifiers

PMID39886495
PMCPMC11235001

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.