Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised trials
Recruiting participants to trials can be extremely difficult. Identifying strategies that improve trial recruitment would benefit both trialists and health research. To quantify the effects of strategies for improving recruitment of participants to randomised trials. A secondary objective is to asse...
Uložené v:
| Vydané v: | Cochrane database of systematic reviews Ročník 2; s. MR000013 |
|---|---|
| Hlavní autori: | , , , , , , , , |
| Médium: | Journal Article |
| Jazyk: | English |
| Vydavateľské údaje: |
England
22.02.2018
|
| Predmet: | |
| ISSN: | 1469-493X, 1469-493X |
| On-line prístup: | Zistit podrobnosti o prístupe |
| Tagy: |
Pridať tag
Žiadne tagy, Buďte prvý, kto otaguje tento záznam!
|
| Abstract | Recruiting participants to trials can be extremely difficult. Identifying strategies that improve trial recruitment would benefit both trialists and health research.
To quantify the effects of strategies for improving recruitment of participants to randomised trials. A secondary objective is to assess the evidence for the effect of the research setting (e.g. primary care versus secondary care) on recruitment.
We searched the Cochrane Methodology Review Group Specialised Register (CMR) in the Cochrane Library (July 2012, searched 11 February 2015); MEDLINE and MEDLINE In Process (OVID) (1946 to 10 February 2015); Embase (OVID) (1996 to 2015 Week 06); Science Citation Index & Social Science Citation Index (ISI) (2009 to 11 February 2015) and ERIC (EBSCO) (2009 to 11 February 2015).
Randomised and quasi-randomised trials of methods to increase recruitment to randomised trials. This includes non-healthcare studies and studies recruiting to hypothetical trials. We excluded studies aiming to increase response rates to questionnaires or trial retention and those evaluating incentives and disincentives for clinicians to recruit participants.
We extracted data on: the method evaluated; country in which the study was carried out; nature of the population; nature of the study setting; nature of the study to be recruited into; randomisation or quasi-randomisation method; and numbers and proportions in each intervention group. We used a risk difference to estimate the absolute improvement and the 95% confidence interval (CI) to describe the effect in individual trials. We assessed heterogeneity between trial results. We used GRADE to judge the certainty we had in the evidence coming from each comparison.
We identified 68 eligible trials (24 new to this update) with more than 74,000 participants. There were 63 studies involving interventions aimed directly at trial participants, while five evaluated interventions aimed at people recruiting participants. All studies were in health care.We found 72 comparisons, but just three are supported by high-certainty evidence according to GRADE.1. Open trials rather than blinded, placebo trials. The absolute improvement was 10% (95% CI 7% to 13%).2. Telephone reminders to people who do not respond to a postal invitation. The absolute improvement was 6% (95% CI 3% to 9%). This result applies to trials that have low underlying recruitment. We are less certain for trials that start out with moderately good recruitment (i.e. over 10%).3. Using a particular, bespoke, user-testing approach to develop participant information leaflets. This method involved spending a lot of time working with the target population for recruitment to decide on the content, format and appearance of the participant information leaflet. This made little or no difference to recruitment: absolute improvement was 1% (95% CI -1% to 3%).We had moderate-certainty evidence for eight other comparisons; our confidence was reduced for most of these because the results came from a single study. Three of the methods were changes to trial management, three were changes to how potential participants received information, one was aimed at recruiters, and the last was a test of financial incentives. All of these comparisons would benefit from other researchers replicating the evaluation. There were no evaluations in paediatric trials.We had much less confidence in the other 61 comparisons because the studies had design flaws, were single studies, had very uncertain results or were hypothetical (mock) trials rather than real ones.
The literature on interventions to improve recruitment to trials has plenty of variety but little depth. Only 3 of 72 comparisons are supported by high-certainty evidence according to GRADE: having an open trial and using telephone reminders to non-responders to postal interventions both increase recruitment; a specialised way of developing participant information leaflets had little or no effect. The methodology research community should improve the evidence base by replicating evaluations of existing strategies, rather than developing and testing new ones. |
|---|---|
| AbstractList | Recruiting participants to trials can be extremely difficult. Identifying strategies that improve trial recruitment would benefit both trialists and health research.
To quantify the effects of strategies for improving recruitment of participants to randomised trials. A secondary objective is to assess the evidence for the effect of the research setting (e.g. primary care versus secondary care) on recruitment.
We searched the Cochrane Methodology Review Group Specialised Register (CMR) in the Cochrane Library (July 2012, searched 11 February 2015); MEDLINE and MEDLINE In Process (OVID) (1946 to 10 February 2015); Embase (OVID) (1996 to 2015 Week 06); Science Citation Index & Social Science Citation Index (ISI) (2009 to 11 February 2015) and ERIC (EBSCO) (2009 to 11 February 2015).
Randomised and quasi-randomised trials of methods to increase recruitment to randomised trials. This includes non-healthcare studies and studies recruiting to hypothetical trials. We excluded studies aiming to increase response rates to questionnaires or trial retention and those evaluating incentives and disincentives for clinicians to recruit participants.
We extracted data on: the method evaluated; country in which the study was carried out; nature of the population; nature of the study setting; nature of the study to be recruited into; randomisation or quasi-randomisation method; and numbers and proportions in each intervention group. We used a risk difference to estimate the absolute improvement and the 95% confidence interval (CI) to describe the effect in individual trials. We assessed heterogeneity between trial results. We used GRADE to judge the certainty we had in the evidence coming from each comparison.
We identified 68 eligible trials (24 new to this update) with more than 74,000 participants. There were 63 studies involving interventions aimed directly at trial participants, while five evaluated interventions aimed at people recruiting participants. All studies were in health care.We found 72 comparisons, but just three are supported by high-certainty evidence according to GRADE.1. Open trials rather than blinded, placebo trials. The absolute improvement was 10% (95% CI 7% to 13%).2. Telephone reminders to people who do not respond to a postal invitation. The absolute improvement was 6% (95% CI 3% to 9%). This result applies to trials that have low underlying recruitment. We are less certain for trials that start out with moderately good recruitment (i.e. over 10%).3. Using a particular, bespoke, user-testing approach to develop participant information leaflets. This method involved spending a lot of time working with the target population for recruitment to decide on the content, format and appearance of the participant information leaflet. This made little or no difference to recruitment: absolute improvement was 1% (95% CI -1% to 3%).We had moderate-certainty evidence for eight other comparisons; our confidence was reduced for most of these because the results came from a single study. Three of the methods were changes to trial management, three were changes to how potential participants received information, one was aimed at recruiters, and the last was a test of financial incentives. All of these comparisons would benefit from other researchers replicating the evaluation. There were no evaluations in paediatric trials.We had much less confidence in the other 61 comparisons because the studies had design flaws, were single studies, had very uncertain results or were hypothetical (mock) trials rather than real ones.
The literature on interventions to improve recruitment to trials has plenty of variety but little depth. Only 3 of 72 comparisons are supported by high-certainty evidence according to GRADE: having an open trial and using telephone reminders to non-responders to postal interventions both increase recruitment; a specialised way of developing participant information leaflets had little or no effect. The methodology research community should improve the evidence base by replicating evaluations of existing strategies, rather than developing and testing new ones. Recruiting participants to trials can be extremely difficult. Identifying strategies that improve trial recruitment would benefit both trialists and health research.BACKGROUNDRecruiting participants to trials can be extremely difficult. Identifying strategies that improve trial recruitment would benefit both trialists and health research.To quantify the effects of strategies for improving recruitment of participants to randomised trials. A secondary objective is to assess the evidence for the effect of the research setting (e.g. primary care versus secondary care) on recruitment.OBJECTIVESTo quantify the effects of strategies for improving recruitment of participants to randomised trials. A secondary objective is to assess the evidence for the effect of the research setting (e.g. primary care versus secondary care) on recruitment.We searched the Cochrane Methodology Review Group Specialised Register (CMR) in the Cochrane Library (July 2012, searched 11 February 2015); MEDLINE and MEDLINE In Process (OVID) (1946 to 10 February 2015); Embase (OVID) (1996 to 2015 Week 06); Science Citation Index & Social Science Citation Index (ISI) (2009 to 11 February 2015) and ERIC (EBSCO) (2009 to 11 February 2015).SEARCH METHODSWe searched the Cochrane Methodology Review Group Specialised Register (CMR) in the Cochrane Library (July 2012, searched 11 February 2015); MEDLINE and MEDLINE In Process (OVID) (1946 to 10 February 2015); Embase (OVID) (1996 to 2015 Week 06); Science Citation Index & Social Science Citation Index (ISI) (2009 to 11 February 2015) and ERIC (EBSCO) (2009 to 11 February 2015).Randomised and quasi-randomised trials of methods to increase recruitment to randomised trials. This includes non-healthcare studies and studies recruiting to hypothetical trials. We excluded studies aiming to increase response rates to questionnaires or trial retention and those evaluating incentives and disincentives for clinicians to recruit participants.SELECTION CRITERIARandomised and quasi-randomised trials of methods to increase recruitment to randomised trials. This includes non-healthcare studies and studies recruiting to hypothetical trials. We excluded studies aiming to increase response rates to questionnaires or trial retention and those evaluating incentives and disincentives for clinicians to recruit participants.We extracted data on: the method evaluated; country in which the study was carried out; nature of the population; nature of the study setting; nature of the study to be recruited into; randomisation or quasi-randomisation method; and numbers and proportions in each intervention group. We used a risk difference to estimate the absolute improvement and the 95% confidence interval (CI) to describe the effect in individual trials. We assessed heterogeneity between trial results. We used GRADE to judge the certainty we had in the evidence coming from each comparison.DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSISWe extracted data on: the method evaluated; country in which the study was carried out; nature of the population; nature of the study setting; nature of the study to be recruited into; randomisation or quasi-randomisation method; and numbers and proportions in each intervention group. We used a risk difference to estimate the absolute improvement and the 95% confidence interval (CI) to describe the effect in individual trials. We assessed heterogeneity between trial results. We used GRADE to judge the certainty we had in the evidence coming from each comparison.We identified 68 eligible trials (24 new to this update) with more than 74,000 participants. There were 63 studies involving interventions aimed directly at trial participants, while five evaluated interventions aimed at people recruiting participants. All studies were in health care.We found 72 comparisons, but just three are supported by high-certainty evidence according to GRADE.1. Open trials rather than blinded, placebo trials. The absolute improvement was 10% (95% CI 7% to 13%).2. Telephone reminders to people who do not respond to a postal invitation. The absolute improvement was 6% (95% CI 3% to 9%). This result applies to trials that have low underlying recruitment. We are less certain for trials that start out with moderately good recruitment (i.e. over 10%).3. Using a particular, bespoke, user-testing approach to develop participant information leaflets. This method involved spending a lot of time working with the target population for recruitment to decide on the content, format and appearance of the participant information leaflet. This made little or no difference to recruitment: absolute improvement was 1% (95% CI -1% to 3%).We had moderate-certainty evidence for eight other comparisons; our confidence was reduced for most of these because the results came from a single study. Three of the methods were changes to trial management, three were changes to how potential participants received information, one was aimed at recruiters, and the last was a test of financial incentives. All of these comparisons would benefit from other researchers replicating the evaluation. There were no evaluations in paediatric trials.We had much less confidence in the other 61 comparisons because the studies had design flaws, were single studies, had very uncertain results or were hypothetical (mock) trials rather than real ones.MAIN RESULTSWe identified 68 eligible trials (24 new to this update) with more than 74,000 participants. There were 63 studies involving interventions aimed directly at trial participants, while five evaluated interventions aimed at people recruiting participants. All studies were in health care.We found 72 comparisons, but just three are supported by high-certainty evidence according to GRADE.1. Open trials rather than blinded, placebo trials. The absolute improvement was 10% (95% CI 7% to 13%).2. Telephone reminders to people who do not respond to a postal invitation. The absolute improvement was 6% (95% CI 3% to 9%). This result applies to trials that have low underlying recruitment. We are less certain for trials that start out with moderately good recruitment (i.e. over 10%).3. Using a particular, bespoke, user-testing approach to develop participant information leaflets. This method involved spending a lot of time working with the target population for recruitment to decide on the content, format and appearance of the participant information leaflet. This made little or no difference to recruitment: absolute improvement was 1% (95% CI -1% to 3%).We had moderate-certainty evidence for eight other comparisons; our confidence was reduced for most of these because the results came from a single study. Three of the methods were changes to trial management, three were changes to how potential participants received information, one was aimed at recruiters, and the last was a test of financial incentives. All of these comparisons would benefit from other researchers replicating the evaluation. There were no evaluations in paediatric trials.We had much less confidence in the other 61 comparisons because the studies had design flaws, were single studies, had very uncertain results or were hypothetical (mock) trials rather than real ones.The literature on interventions to improve recruitment to trials has plenty of variety but little depth. Only 3 of 72 comparisons are supported by high-certainty evidence according to GRADE: having an open trial and using telephone reminders to non-responders to postal interventions both increase recruitment; a specialised way of developing participant information leaflets had little or no effect. The methodology research community should improve the evidence base by replicating evaluations of existing strategies, rather than developing and testing new ones.AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONSThe literature on interventions to improve recruitment to trials has plenty of variety but little depth. Only 3 of 72 comparisons are supported by high-certainty evidence according to GRADE: having an open trial and using telephone reminders to non-responders to postal interventions both increase recruitment; a specialised way of developing participant information leaflets had little or no effect. The methodology research community should improve the evidence base by replicating evaluations of existing strategies, rather than developing and testing new ones. |
| Author | Cook, Jonathan Mitchell, Elizabeth Fraser, Cynthia Pitkethly, Marie Taskila, Tyna K Treweek, Shaun Sullivan, Frank Jackson, Catherine Gardner, Heidi |
| Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: Shaun surname: Treweek fullname: Treweek, Shaun organization: Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, UK, AB25 2ZD – sequence: 2 givenname: Marie surname: Pitkethly fullname: Pitkethly, Marie – sequence: 3 givenname: Jonathan surname: Cook fullname: Cook, Jonathan – sequence: 4 givenname: Cynthia surname: Fraser fullname: Fraser, Cynthia – sequence: 5 givenname: Elizabeth surname: Mitchell fullname: Mitchell, Elizabeth – sequence: 6 givenname: Frank surname: Sullivan fullname: Sullivan, Frank – sequence: 7 givenname: Catherine surname: Jackson fullname: Jackson, Catherine – sequence: 8 givenname: Tyna K surname: Taskila fullname: Taskila, Tyna K – sequence: 9 givenname: Heidi surname: Gardner fullname: Gardner, Heidi |
| BackLink | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29468635$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed |
| BookMark | eNpNj0lLxEAQhRsZcRb9C0OOXjJWL-lUH2VwgxHBBbyFTlKRyGSxuyP4721xBOvyHlUfj1dLNuuHnhhbc9hwAHHBlc44Zri5f4Q4XG7GqdRHbBEPJlVGvs7--Tlbev8OIA3neMLmwiiNWmYLpp-Cs4HeWvJJGJK2G93wSYmjyk1t6KgPP2tn-3roWk91Elxr9_6UHTdR6OygK_ZyffW8vU13Dzd328tdWqlc6pRyyLHR2JhMoUDktRECZQnCaGsNQIm5Qch1qbO6bipbqdJktpKR1cqiWLHz39xY62MiH4rYoqL93vY0TL4QALkSQkge0fUBncqO6mJ0bWfdV_H3q_gGEjxYpA |
| CitedBy_id | crossref_primary_10_1186_s12874_024_02342_y crossref_primary_10_1016_j_radi_2024_06_014 crossref_primary_10_12688_f1000research_24938_1 crossref_primary_10_3389_fpubh_2023_1123107 crossref_primary_10_1080_23311908_2024_2355779 crossref_primary_10_2196_30941 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13063_022_06818_4 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2020_043929 crossref_primary_10_2147_PPA_S402769 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12875_022_01898_2 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13063_025_08958_9 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jinf_2020_11_004 crossref_primary_10_12688_f1000research_19743_1 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13063_021_05043_9 crossref_primary_10_2196_18385 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13063_023_07504_9 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12877_022_03039_x crossref_primary_10_1016_j_cct_2021_106399 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjgh_2020_004145 crossref_primary_10_1177_17449871211068017 crossref_primary_10_1007_s12508_025_00450_8 crossref_primary_10_12688_f1000research_22182_1 crossref_primary_10_1177_26320843221106950 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13063_020_04358_3 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13063_025_08931_6 crossref_primary_10_1177_26320843221106949 crossref_primary_10_1177_14653125211024250 crossref_primary_10_1186_s40814_025_01658_w crossref_primary_10_2196_24003 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13063_021_05346_x crossref_primary_10_1186_s12916_023_02936_1 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2023_078638 crossref_primary_10_2147_JMDH_S355055 crossref_primary_10_1080_23294515_2020_1775721 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13063_023_07727_w crossref_primary_10_1177_08295735251340750 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12913_025_13115_8 crossref_primary_10_1001_jamanetworkopen_2023_33642 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_conctc_2019_100488 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12916_020_01555_4 crossref_primary_10_12688_f1000research_52164_1 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jsat_2020_108259 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13063_021_05186_9 crossref_primary_10_12688_f1000research_52164_2 crossref_primary_10_1001_jama_2025_10107 crossref_primary_10_12688_f1000research_75339_1 crossref_primary_10_2196_58136 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13063_021_05624_8 crossref_primary_10_2196_resprot_9762 crossref_primary_10_1080_24709360_2018_1477467 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13063_025_08772_3 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13643_020_01471_x crossref_primary_10_1002_cam4_7298 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13063_019_3496_z crossref_primary_10_1177_15562646241309142 crossref_primary_10_7759_cureus_18920 crossref_primary_10_2196_63209 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmj_l6228 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13063_024_08301_8 crossref_primary_10_12688_f1000research_21902_1 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12998_022_00453_1 crossref_primary_10_3389_fpain_2023_1330937 crossref_primary_10_1002_eahr_500147 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2021_048985 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2022_064159 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13063_022_06052_y crossref_primary_10_1186_s13643_023_02270_w crossref_primary_10_1007_s40199_020_00380_7 crossref_primary_10_2196_29958 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13063_019_3273_z crossref_primary_10_1136_archdischild_2020_319545 crossref_primary_10_12688_f1000research_24051_1 crossref_primary_10_12688_f1000research_130154_1 crossref_primary_10_1177_01939459231217919 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_profnurs_2024_12_010 crossref_primary_10_1136_leader_2022_000641 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2021_059230 crossref_primary_10_3389_fneur_2019_00683 crossref_primary_10_3389_fpsyt_2021_647450 crossref_primary_10_2147_PRBM_S389562 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41598_024_57514_z crossref_primary_10_1177_15579883211018418 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2021_059194 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2022_067656 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2021_056758 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13063_021_05121_y crossref_primary_10_3390_healthcare8040459 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2023_078942 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12874_025_02464_x crossref_primary_10_1186_s12913_025_12456_8 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2021_054854 crossref_primary_10_3928_25731777_20230920_07 crossref_primary_10_1002_nop2_1767 crossref_primary_10_1002_cncr_34357 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12874_023_01838_3 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13063_022_06553_w crossref_primary_10_1186_s12874_022_01553_5 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2020_045233 crossref_primary_10_2147_AMEP_S485530 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13063_025_08824_8 crossref_primary_10_3390_jcm12062307 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_conctc_2020_100572 crossref_primary_10_2196_15455 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13063_025_08998_1 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12911_020_1091_6 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ogla_2022_10_006 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13063_019_3980_5 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2020_044702 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13063_021_05761_0 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12874_020_01140_6 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13063_023_07159_6 crossref_primary_10_12688_f1000research_18300_1 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13643_024_02533_0 crossref_primary_10_3389_fpubh_2022_983571 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13063_023_07268_2 crossref_primary_10_1186_s40900_021_00300_2 crossref_primary_10_2196_59027 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ijmedinf_2023_104985 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13063_021_05818_0 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0234783 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13063_021_05853_x crossref_primary_10_1186_s13063_019_3710_z crossref_primary_10_1136_bmj_2024_081660 crossref_primary_10_1111_pan_14755 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmj_m3721 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13063_021_05297_3 crossref_primary_10_1001_jamanetworkopen_2022_44040 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2021_055521 crossref_primary_10_1177_08903344241297604 crossref_primary_10_1002_msc_1561 crossref_primary_10_1177_10748407231167438 crossref_primary_10_1002_cncr_35703 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13063_022_06705_y crossref_primary_10_1186_s13063_024_08004_0 crossref_primary_10_1002_nop2_1027 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12966_020_01025_3 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13063_024_07988_z crossref_primary_10_1186_s40900_022_00366_6 crossref_primary_10_1001_jama_2025_9170 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12874_020_01136_2 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13063_019_3354_z crossref_primary_10_1177_15333175241276443 crossref_primary_10_12688_f1000research_110083_1 crossref_primary_10_1186_s40814_021_00866_4 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13063_025_08808_8 crossref_primary_10_2196_49347 crossref_primary_10_3390_ijerph17082764 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13063_023_07177_4 crossref_primary_10_12688_f1000research_18939_1 crossref_primary_10_3389_fphar_2020_603042 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13063_020_04234_0 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12916_023_03222_w crossref_primary_10_1186_s13063_022_06187_y crossref_primary_10_1002_eat_24187 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13063_020_04779_0 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13063_022_06588_z crossref_primary_10_2196_29510 crossref_primary_10_2196_40892 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13063_024_08625_5 crossref_primary_10_1177_0193945919829145 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13063_023_07630_4 |
| ContentType | Journal Article |
| DBID | CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM 7X8 |
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub6 |
| DatabaseName | Medline MEDLINE MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE MEDLINE PubMed MEDLINE - Academic |
| DatabaseTitle | MEDLINE Medline Complete MEDLINE with Full Text PubMed MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE - Academic |
| DatabaseTitleList | MEDLINE MEDLINE - Academic |
| Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: NPM name: PubMed url: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 2 dbid: 7X8 name: MEDLINE - Academic url: https://search.proquest.com/medline sourceTypes: Aggregation Database |
| DeliveryMethod | no_fulltext_linktorsrc |
| Discipline | Medicine |
| EISSN | 1469-493X |
| ExternalDocumentID | 29468635 |
| Genre | Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Systematic Review Journal Article |
| GrantInformation_xml | – fundername: Chief Scientist Office grantid: HSRU1 – fundername: Medical Research Council grantid: MR/K025643/1 |
| GroupedDBID | --- 53G 5GY 7PX 9HA ABJNI ACGFO ACGFS AENEX ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS ALUQN AYR CGR CUY CVF D7G ECM EIF HYE NPM OEC OK1 P2P RWY WOW ZYTZH 7X8 |
| ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-c4736-e7078f68f95482881d92283b0296aa900b8798076b65ddfcac4b95ac328864a82 |
| IEDL.DBID | 7X8 |
| ISICitedReferencesCount | 368 |
| ISICitedReferencesURI | http://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=Summon&SrcAuth=ProQuest&DestLinkType=CitingArticles&DestApp=WOS_CPL&KeyUT=000426476500033&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D |
| ISSN | 1469-493X |
| IngestDate | Fri Jul 11 12:30:46 EDT 2025 Tue Jun 24 01:32:04 EDT 2025 |
| IsDoiOpenAccess | false |
| IsOpenAccess | true |
| IsPeerReviewed | true |
| IsScholarly | true |
| Language | English |
| LinkModel | DirectLink |
| MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c4736-e7078f68f95482881d92283b0296aa900b8798076b65ddfcac4b95ac328864a82 |
| Notes | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 ObjectType-Review-3 content type line 23 ObjectType-Undefined-4 |
| OpenAccessLink | https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub6/pdf/full |
| PMID | 29468635 |
| PQID | 2007422231 |
| PQPubID | 23479 |
| ParticipantIDs | proquest_miscellaneous_2007422231 pubmed_primary_29468635 |
| PublicationCentury | 2000 |
| PublicationDate | 2018-02-22 |
| PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2018-02-22 |
| PublicationDate_xml | – month: 02 year: 2018 text: 2018-02-22 day: 22 |
| PublicationDecade | 2010 |
| PublicationPlace | England |
| PublicationPlace_xml | – name: England |
| PublicationTitle | Cochrane database of systematic reviews |
| PublicationTitleAlternate | Cochrane Database Syst Rev |
| PublicationYear | 2018 |
| References | 20393971 - Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Apr 14;(4):MR000013. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub5. 30586062 - Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2019 Jan;477(1):22-27. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000000577. |
| References_xml | – reference: 30586062 - Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2019 Jan;477(1):22-27. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000000577. – reference: 20393971 - Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Apr 14;(4):MR000013. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub5. |
| SSID | ssj0039118 |
| Score | 2.6642632 |
| SecondaryResourceType | review_article |
| Snippet | Recruiting participants to trials can be extremely difficult. Identifying strategies that improve trial recruitment would benefit both trialists and health... |
| SourceID | proquest pubmed |
| SourceType | Aggregation Database Index Database |
| StartPage | MR000013 |
| SubjectTerms | Humans Patient Education as Topic Patient Selection Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic Reminder Systems Sample Size Telephone |
| Title | Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised trials |
| URI | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29468635 https://www.proquest.com/docview/2007422231 |
| Volume | 2 |
| WOSCitedRecordID | wos000426476500033&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D |
| hasFullText | |
| inHoldings | 1 |
| isFullTextHit | |
| isPrint | |
| link | http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwpV1JS8QwFA7qiHhxX8aNCl7jdJI0TU4i4uBlhjko9Faywlxanc74-31JWz0JgpceSlOSl-S9j7d9CN0x5T3YIYOZlwQzqwwWOudYudRyrSyMSyPZRD6biaKQ887h1nRplb1OjIra1ib4yEfBpxbcFXT88P6BA2tUiK52FBqbaEAByoSUrrz4jiJQuMiirS4KTGq06CuEUzIaBw5wkYn7aWRcG9OwfP47zIzmZrL_34keoL0OaCaP7ck4RBuuOkI70y6Ufox435fWNcmqThbRueASUIDL9SKmnofXYMlsDUfB2STyezQn6G3y_Pr0gjsSBWxYTjl2oZ2P58KHzm5EADyVoeONTonkSsk01SKXIs255pm13ijDtMyUofAtZ0qQU7RV1ZU7R0mmtJeKCeoBEzhvJOynlZkw3MPvtBmi214iJcwsRB5U5ep1U_7IZIjOWrGW7203jZJIxgXAnos_jL5EuwBYRCwpJ1do4GHd7hptm8_VolnexN2H52w-_QJYrrk1 |
| linkProvider | ProQuest |
| openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Strategies+to+improve+recruitment+to+randomised+trials&rft.jtitle=Cochrane+database+of+systematic+reviews&rft.au=Treweek%2C+Shaun&rft.au=Pitkethly%2C+Marie&rft.au=Cook%2C+Jonathan&rft.au=Fraser%2C+Cynthia&rft.date=2018-02-22&rft.eissn=1469-493X&rft.volume=2&rft.spage=MR000013&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000013.pub6&rft_id=info%3Apmid%2F29468635&rft_id=info%3Apmid%2F29468635&rft.externalDocID=29468635 |
| thumbnail_l | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=1469-493X&client=summon |
| thumbnail_m | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=1469-493X&client=summon |
| thumbnail_s | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=1469-493X&client=summon |