ArticleTrials2023
Clinical research nurse predictions of trial failure, recruitment and retention: a case for their early inclusion in trial design.
Article in Trials, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial Forge Guidance 5: ethical considerations in randomised Studies Within A Trial (SWATs).Trials · 2025Guideline
- Clinical Research Nurses, an Untapped Resource of Nurse Researchers?Nursing open · 2026Article
- The Dedicated Inflammatory Bowel Disease Nurse, If You Know Them, You Love Them: Survey of the Italian IBD Patients' Association.Crohn's & colitis 360 · 2025Article
- Evaluating the use of SPIRIT on participant retention in randomised trials: Challenges in reporting and implications for practice.PloS one · 2025Article
- Development and validation of a drug clinical trial participation feelings questionnaire for cancer patients.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundClinical research nurses are a key part of the clinical trial team but typically get involved later in the trial, usually during recruitment. The purpose of our study was to establish if CRNs who read the trial protocol can predict the performance of the trial.
methodsWe randomly selected 18 trial protocols with three statuses, terminated, withdrawn, and completed, from ClinicalTrials.gov, between 2014 and 2018 inclusive. We gave the protocols to five CRNs, asked them to make a judgement and provide a reason for that judgement (via a 12-item questionnaire) on the status of the trial (terminated, withdrawn or completed), if the trial met its recruitment target, if it recruited on time, and if it retained its participants. We also asked if it was likely a CRN was involved in the design of the trial. The CRNs were blinded to the study outcomes, did not receive any training on how to read a protocol and were prohibited from using/abstained from using the internet while completing the task.
resultsTwenty-three questionnaires on 23 trial protocols (18 different trials) were completed by 5 CRNs. The CRNs correctly predicted the trial status 48%, 95% CI: 29-67% (11/23) of the time; successful/unsuccessful recruitment 74%, 95% CI: 54-87% (17/23) of the time; on-time recruitment 70%, 95% CI: 49-84% (16/23) of the time; and participant retention 52%, 95% CI: 33-71% (12/23). CRNs identified 100% (sensitivity) of sites that hit their target and 63%, 95% CI: 36-84% (specificity) of sites that missed their target.
conclusionsCRNs are very good judges of trial recruitment and site performance issues and are a vital part of the clinical trial team. Taken with the ESP (Estimating Site Performance) study, we have made a strong case for broadening the trial team at the trial design stage. Early engagement of a broad skillset can potentially offset problems of recruitment, retention and trial failure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.