ArticlePloS one2025
Improving patient recruitment to randomised trials can be cost-effective: A case-study of dexamethasone from the RECOVERY trial.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised trials.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe RECOVERY trial assessed the effectiveness of treatments on preventing severe outcomes from COVID-19 disease in hospitalised patients from 176 NHS hospitals. Clinical benefits of Dexamethasone were observed for hospitalised COVID-19 patients. About 15% of all eligible patients were recruited into the trial. Had patient recruitment been higher the study would have been completed more rapidly.
aimTo estimate the cost-effectiveness of improving recruitment to the RECOVERY trial from 15% to 50%, by employing or redeploying two research nurses to each hospital participating in the RECOVERY trial. The analysis is restricted to the evaluation of Dexamethasone versus No Dexamethasone.
methodsA decision tree model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of Dexamethasone, against No Dexamethasone. Probability, utility, and cost inputs were used for each pathway and treatment. Then, a cost-utility analysis of clinical practice post-RECOVERY trial (83% Dexamethasone, 17% No Dexamethasone) versus previous clinical practice (100% No Dexamethasone) was undertaken; this analysis was aggregated at the population level and the cost of employing or redeploying two research nurses at each hospital was added, to estimate the cost-effectiveness of faster recruitment to the RECOVERY trial.
resultsFaster recruitment to the RECOVERY trial could have generated an incremental net benefit of £13,955,476 related to the evaluation of Dexamethasone against No Dexamethasone, thus highlighting the magnitude of the foregone incremental net benefit due to not adopting a more cost-effective clinical practice (83% Dexamethasone, 17% No Dexamethasone) earlier. The findings remain robust following variations in the model's parameters, with a 85% and 94% probability of faster recruitment being cost-effective given a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 and £30,000 per Quality Adjusted Life Year respectively.
conclusionSlow recruitment to randomised trials can have huge implications for healthcare systems as a result of not introducing a more cost-effective treatment earlier through faster patient recruitment.
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.