ArticleRheumatology advances in practice2026
Screening failure in systemic sclerosis randomized trials: reporting, rates, causes and trends over time.
Article in Rheumatology advances in practice, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To evaluate the completeness of reporting of pre-randomization patient' flow in SSc randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and to estimate the extent and reasons for screening failure. Methods: We searched SSc RCTs indexed in PubMed from 2000 to 2024. We recorded key trial features and checked whether they provided information on patient flow before randomization. We collected information on the adequacy of reporting of the pre-randomization phase, the number of patients screened and the extent and reasons of screening failure. Data were summarized as number (percentage) for qualitative variables and median (interquartile range) for continuous variables. Results: Of the 127 SSc RCTs retrieved, 52.9% reported patient flow before randomization, 21.2% of those published before 2011 and 65.1% of those published after. The most commonly used terms were 'screened' in 33 studies (50%) and 'assessed for eligibility' in 29 studies (44%). Of 10 043 patients screened, 5147 (51%) were considered screening failure. The median proportion of screening failures was 36% (IQR 20-58), with higher rates in studies testing non-pharmacologic interventions, lacking industry funding, lacking double-blinding or not including a placebo arm. Reasons for screening failure and their frequency were detailed for 3510 screening failure patients (68.2%). The main reasons were not meeting the eligibility criteria and patient refusal, which accounted for 72.5% and 20.8% cases, respectively. Screening failure remained stable over time. Conclusions: Reporting of screening procedures in SSc RCTs has improved over time but remains suboptimal. Most screening failures are due to patient ineligibility, followed by patient refusal, which continues to represent a significant barrier to enrolment.
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.