ReviewOsteoarthritis and cartilage open2025
Methodology and predictive accuracy of the prospective preference assessment for randomized trial enrollment: A literature review.
Review in Osteoarthritis and cartilage open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: The success of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) depends, in part, on the willingness to participate (WTP) of eligible subjects. Prospective preference assessments (PPA) offer insights into future RCT enrollment by evaluating eligible individuals' WTP in the RCT. We sought to summarize the methods and findings of published PPAs and to compare the WTP estimates of published PPAs to the actual enrollment rates from these trials. Design: We performed a systematic literature search using PubMed for studies that assessed eligible participants' WTP in a hypothetical trial. We abstracted sample size, proposed interventions, WTP response options, WTP percentage, presence of qualitative analyses, and assessment of trial feasibility from each publication. We defined WTP as a response of "probably" or "definitely" willing in the PPA; in sensitivity analyses, we included only "definitely" willing responses. We searched for registered and published RCTs connected to each PPA and extracted enrollment data from the corresponding trial publications where available. Results: We identified 40 PPAs. The median WTP across all PPAs was 54.9 % (range: 13 %-92.4 %), and 42.1 % (range: 7 %-90.2 %) when including only "definitely willing" responses. We found ten registered RCTs; five are completed and one is ongoing. Four PPAs with a RCT provided both "definitely willing" and "total willing" estimates. In three of these four RCTs, the actual enrollment fell between the "definitely willing" and "total willing" PPA estimates. Conclusion: "Definitely willing" and "total willing" findings in a PPA may provide useful upper and lower boundaries on participation for future trial planning.
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.