ReviewBMJ open2026
Retention in trials: a qualitative evidence synthesis of studies reporting participant reasons for trial non-completion.
Review in BMJ open, 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
objectivesPoor participant retention in randomised clinical trials, resulting in missing outcome data, can impact the validity, reliability and generalisability of results. While participants' views on general non-retention issues have been reported elsewhere, a qualitative evidence synthesis specifically focusing on trial processes (ie, outcome data collection) impacting retention has not been undertaken to date. This is an important research question to inform targeted interventions to support retention. This review aims to address this by systematically searching and synthesising the evidence on participant reasons for trial non-completion, linked to outcome data collection.
designWe conducted a qualitative evidence synthesis of qualitative studies and mixed methods studies with a qualitative component, in Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Social Science Citation Index, Cumulative Index of Nursing & Allied Health Literature and Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, up to February 2025. We used Thomas and Harden's thematic synthesis approach. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative framework was used to assess confidence in the review findings.
participantsWe identified 11 studies reporting qualitative data from 14 separate trials, with findings from 105 trial non-retainers. The studies were undertaken between 2007 and 2025.
resultsThere were three types of participant non-retention behaviours reported across the studies, where participants either: (1) missed at least one clinic visit; (2) did not complete a postal questionnaire or (3) did not complete online data collection. We developed four analytical themes outlining participant-reported influences on trial non-retention, specifically related to trial processes (ie, data collection for outcome measures): fluctuating health, balancing trial burdens, navigating life as a trial participant and managing expectations of participation.
conclusionsThis review generates important insights into participants' reasons for trial non-completion linked to outcome data collection. The review highlights the need for further research into supporting trial recruitment discussions that provide clear, realistic expectations for potential trial participants, as well as strategies that recognise, and where possible, address some of the influences on participants to improve outcome data completeness and ultimately improve trial retention.
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.