Trial reportTrials2026
Failure to rescue the trial: lessons from a randomised antibiotic treatment trial in the acute care setting.
Trial report in Trials, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA cluster-randomised cross-over trial assessing whether cephalosporin monotherapy is non-inferior to cefuroxime plus short-course aminoglycoside combination therapy for empirical sepsis treatment was terminated for operational futility due to low enrolment and low protocol adherence. We evaluated barriers to enrolment and treatment compliance.
methodsTrial enrolment was between May 2022 and May 2023. For this mixed-methods study, we used questionnaires to identify barriers to enrolment and prescribing randomised treatment among local research teams (LRTs) and local clinical staff, which were obtained between January and March 2024. In addition, we investigated screening logs for non-enrolment reasons and determined patient characteristics associated with non-compliance. Clinicians being part of LRT received questionnaires for both roles, with their role clearly indicated per question.
resultsIn total, 65 questionnaires were completed: 23 by LRT members and 54 by clinical staff (including 12 LRT members). For patient enrolment, screening of inclusion and exclusion criteria was considered challenging in one hospital. According to screening logs, 52.2% of patients were excluded due to at least one exclusion criterion, and 15.6% of eligible patients declined consent for study participation. Primary barriers to prescribe combination therapy were concerns about potential side effects and limited perceived benefit compared to monotherapy. Secondary barriers included supervisors recommending deviations from study protocol. Keeping clinical staff informed and trained during the study was reported as relevant barrier for implementation by LRTs, but considered of low importance by clinical staff. No barriers were reported for monotherapy.
conclusionsIn this study, the main barrier for patient enrolment was the higher than expected proportion of patients with exclusion criteria. The main barrier for treatment compliance was concerns about potential side effects of combination therapy. We recommend quantitative and qualitative pilot studies to identify barriers during the trial design phase, to optimise recruitment strategies and protocol adherence.
trial registrationEuropean Union Clinical Trials Register, EUCTR2021-001840-83-NL. Registered on 7 July 2021, https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/search?query=eudract_number:2021-001840-83.
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.