Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30564680›Full record

ArticleBJGP open2017

Discontinuation of a randomised controlled trial in general practice due to unsuccessful patient recruitment.

Wendelien H van der Gaag, Roxanne van den Berg, Bart W Koes, Arthur M Bohnen, Lonny Mg Hazen, Wilco C Peul, Leen Voogt, Arianne P Verhagen, Sita Ma Bierma-Zeinstra, Pim Aj Luijsterburg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BJGP open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Wendelien H van der GaagGP trainee and PhD student, Department of General Practice, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Roxanne van den BergGP trainee and PhD student, Department of General Practice, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Bart W KoesProfessor of General Practice, Department of General Practice, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Arthur M BohnenGP, Department of General Practice, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Lonny Mg HazenGP, Department of General Practice, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Wilco C PeulProfessor of Neurosurgery, Department of Neurosurgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Leen VoogtPatient and Board Member of 'De Wervelkolom', Dutch Association for Back Pain Patients, Lichtenvoorde, The Netherlands.
Arianne P VerhagenAssociate Professor, Department of General Practice, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Sita Ma Bierma-ZeinstraProfessor of Osteoarthritis and Related Disorders, Departments of General Practice and Orthopedics, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Pim Aj LuijsterburgAssistant Professor, Department of General Practice, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA randomised controlled trial (RCT) in general practice, recruiting incident patients with (sub)acute sciatica, was discontinued because of insufficient recruitment.

aimTo describe factors that influenced the recruitment process and ultimately led to discontinuation of this trial, and to enable others to learn from this experience. DESIGN &

settingA pragmatic RCT was designed to compare two pain medication prescription strategies for treatment of (sub)acute sciatica in general practice. After 1 year of patient recruitment, the trial was prematurely terminated.

methodTo analyse the underperforming recruitment, patient information systems of 20 general practices were screened twice a month to search for eligible patients and identify reasons for non-eligibility. Secondly, after study termination, an open question was distributed to the participating GPs for their views on the recruitment process.

resultsA total of 116 GPs from 37 general practices collaborated in the trial. Only eight of 234 patients were included after 12 months. The 22 GPs who offered their opinion on the main reasons for unsuccessful recruitment considered that these were the low incidence rate and strict eligibility criteria, a strong patient and/or GP preference, and time constraints.

conclusionFor this RCT, multiple factors were related to recruitment problems but it remains unknown which determinants prevailed. As the research question is unanswered but remains relevant, it is recommended that GPs' daily practice is taken into account when designing an RCT, a pilot study should be performed for feasibility of recruitment, and GP assistants should be involved at an early stage.

Indexed as

early termination of clinical trialsgeneral practicepatient recruitmentprimary health carerandomized controlled trialstudy design

Identifiers

PMID30564680
PMCPMC6169930

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.