Cargando…

A systematic review of the efficiency of recruitment to stroke rehabilitation randomised controlled trials

INTRODUCTION: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that fail to meet their recruitment target risk increasing research waste. Acute stroke RCTs experience notable recruitment issues. The efficiency of recruitment to stroke rehabilitation RCTs has not been explored. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To explore rec...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: McGill, Kris, Sackley, Catherine M., Godwin, Jon, McGarry, Jodie, Brady, Marian C.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6954526/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31924252
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-019-3991-2
_version_ 1783486811780153344
author McGill, Kris
Sackley, Catherine M.
Godwin, Jon
McGarry, Jodie
Brady, Marian C.
author_facet McGill, Kris
Sackley, Catherine M.
Godwin, Jon
McGarry, Jodie
Brady, Marian C.
author_sort McGill, Kris
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that fail to meet their recruitment target risk increasing research waste. Acute stroke RCTs experience notable recruitment issues. The efficiency of recruitment to stroke rehabilitation RCTs has not been explored. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To explore recruitment efficiency and the trial features associated with efficient recruitment to stroke rehabilitation RCTs. METHODS: A systematic review of stroke rehabilitation RCTs published between 2005 and 2015 identified in a search of the Cochrane Stroke Group (CSG) Trials Register from 35 electronic databases (e.g. Medline, CINAHL; EMBASE), clinical trial registers, and hand-searching. Inclusion criteria are stroke rehabilitation intervention, delivered by a member of the rehabilitation team, and clinically relevant environment. We extracted data on recruitment efficiency and trial features. RESULTS: We screened 12,939 titles, 1270 abstracts and 788 full texts, before extracting data from 512 included RCTs (n = 28,804 stroke survivor participants). This is the largest systematic review of recruitment to date. A third of stroke survivors screened consented to participate (median 34% (IQR 14–61), on average sites recruited 1.5 participants per site per month (IQR 0.71–3.22), and one in twenty (6% (IQR 0–13) dropped out during the RCT. Almost half (48%) of those screened in the community were recruited compared to hospital settings (27%). Similarly, almost half (47%) those screened at least 6 months after stroke participated, compared to 23% of stroke survivors screened within a month of stroke. When one recruiter screened multiple sites, a median of one stroke survivor was recruited every 2 months compared to more than two per month when there was a dedicated recruiter per site. RCT recruitment was significantly faster per site, with fewer dropouts, for trials conducted in Asia (almost three stroke survivors monthly; 2% dropout) compared to European trials (approximately one stroke survivor monthly; 7% dropout). CONCLUSIONS: One third of stroke survivors screened were randomised to rehabilitation RCTs at a rate of between one and two per month, per site. One in twenty did not complete the trial. Our findings will inform recruitment plans of future stroke rehabilitation RCTs. Limited reporting of recruitment details restricted the subgroup analysis performed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, registration number CRD42016033067.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6954526
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-69545262020-01-14 A systematic review of the efficiency of recruitment to stroke rehabilitation randomised controlled trials McGill, Kris Sackley, Catherine M. Godwin, Jon McGarry, Jodie Brady, Marian C. Trials Review INTRODUCTION: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that fail to meet their recruitment target risk increasing research waste. Acute stroke RCTs experience notable recruitment issues. The efficiency of recruitment to stroke rehabilitation RCTs has not been explored. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To explore recruitment efficiency and the trial features associated with efficient recruitment to stroke rehabilitation RCTs. METHODS: A systematic review of stroke rehabilitation RCTs published between 2005 and 2015 identified in a search of the Cochrane Stroke Group (CSG) Trials Register from 35 electronic databases (e.g. Medline, CINAHL; EMBASE), clinical trial registers, and hand-searching. Inclusion criteria are stroke rehabilitation intervention, delivered by a member of the rehabilitation team, and clinically relevant environment. We extracted data on recruitment efficiency and trial features. RESULTS: We screened 12,939 titles, 1270 abstracts and 788 full texts, before extracting data from 512 included RCTs (n = 28,804 stroke survivor participants). This is the largest systematic review of recruitment to date. A third of stroke survivors screened consented to participate (median 34% (IQR 14–61), on average sites recruited 1.5 participants per site per month (IQR 0.71–3.22), and one in twenty (6% (IQR 0–13) dropped out during the RCT. Almost half (48%) of those screened in the community were recruited compared to hospital settings (27%). Similarly, almost half (47%) those screened at least 6 months after stroke participated, compared to 23% of stroke survivors screened within a month of stroke. When one recruiter screened multiple sites, a median of one stroke survivor was recruited every 2 months compared to more than two per month when there was a dedicated recruiter per site. RCT recruitment was significantly faster per site, with fewer dropouts, for trials conducted in Asia (almost three stroke survivors monthly; 2% dropout) compared to European trials (approximately one stroke survivor monthly; 7% dropout). CONCLUSIONS: One third of stroke survivors screened were randomised to rehabilitation RCTs at a rate of between one and two per month, per site. One in twenty did not complete the trial. Our findings will inform recruitment plans of future stroke rehabilitation RCTs. Limited reporting of recruitment details restricted the subgroup analysis performed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, registration number CRD42016033067. BioMed Central 2020-01-10 /pmc/articles/PMC6954526/ /pubmed/31924252 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-019-3991-2 Text en © The Author(s). 2020 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Review
McGill, Kris
Sackley, Catherine M.
Godwin, Jon
McGarry, Jodie
Brady, Marian C.
A systematic review of the efficiency of recruitment to stroke rehabilitation randomised controlled trials
title A systematic review of the efficiency of recruitment to stroke rehabilitation randomised controlled trials
title_full A systematic review of the efficiency of recruitment to stroke rehabilitation randomised controlled trials
title_fullStr A systematic review of the efficiency of recruitment to stroke rehabilitation randomised controlled trials
title_full_unstemmed A systematic review of the efficiency of recruitment to stroke rehabilitation randomised controlled trials
title_short A systematic review of the efficiency of recruitment to stroke rehabilitation randomised controlled trials
title_sort systematic review of the efficiency of recruitment to stroke rehabilitation randomised controlled trials
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6954526/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31924252
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-019-3991-2
work_keys_str_mv AT mcgillkris asystematicreviewoftheefficiencyofrecruitmenttostrokerehabilitationrandomisedcontrolledtrials
AT sackleycatherinem asystematicreviewoftheefficiencyofrecruitmenttostrokerehabilitationrandomisedcontrolledtrials
AT godwinjon asystematicreviewoftheefficiencyofrecruitmenttostrokerehabilitationrandomisedcontrolledtrials
AT mcgarryjodie asystematicreviewoftheefficiencyofrecruitmenttostrokerehabilitationrandomisedcontrolledtrials
AT bradymarianc asystematicreviewoftheefficiencyofrecruitmenttostrokerehabilitationrandomisedcontrolledtrials
AT mcgillkris systematicreviewoftheefficiencyofrecruitmenttostrokerehabilitationrandomisedcontrolledtrials
AT sackleycatherinem systematicreviewoftheefficiencyofrecruitmenttostrokerehabilitationrandomisedcontrolledtrials
AT godwinjon systematicreviewoftheefficiencyofrecruitmenttostrokerehabilitationrandomisedcontrolledtrials
AT mcgarryjodie systematicreviewoftheefficiencyofrecruitmenttostrokerehabilitationrandomisedcontrolledtrials
AT bradymarianc systematicreviewoftheefficiencyofrecruitmenttostrokerehabilitationrandomisedcontrolledtrials