ArticleContemporary clinical trials communications2025
Experience of linking to the NHS diabetic eye screening programme records in the ASCEND-eye randomized trial and recommendations for improvement.
Article in Contemporary clinical trials communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background: The ASCEND-Eye sub-study of the large, double-blind, 2x2 factorial design, placebo-controlled ASCEND trial compared the effects of aspirin and, separately, omega-3 fatty acids on diabetic retinopathy outcomes derived from NHS Diabetic Eye Screening Programmes (DESP) in England and Wales, in adults aged 40 years or older with diabetes and no pre-existing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. ASCEND-Eye was unprecedented in what it set out to achieve; no previous studies had successfully obtained linked DESP data for research purposes on a national scale in England and Wales before. Objective: To describe our experience of linking DESP records to help other researchers wishing to use them. We explain the application process, lead times and resources required, and how these data were governed. Results: The process of gaining regulatory and ethics committee approval for ASCEND-Eye through to data acquisition took four years. Several challenges were encountered, including a lack of documentation defining the governance of the NHS screening service, the absence of a single central data repository, the inherent complexity of liaising with multiple data controllers, and a lack of responsiveness to invitations to collaborate by nearly half of the DESPs in England. Conclusion: Routinely collected healthcare data is a valuable source of outcome measure information in clinical trials. However, researchers frequently face barriers to accessing these datasets despite having written informed consent from trial participants to do so. We hope to encourage more NHS DESPs to take part in research.
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.