 |
 |
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Summaries for Patients are a service provided by Annals to help patients better understand the complicated and often mystifying language of modern medicine.
SUMMARIES FOR PATIENTS
Reporting the Recruitment Process in Clinical Trials: Who Are These Patients and How Did They Get There?
2 July 2002 | Volume 137 Issue 1 | Page I-38
Summaries for Patients are presented for informational purposes only. These summaries are not a substitute for advice from your own medical provider. If you have questions about this material, or need medical advice about your own health or situation, please contact your physician. The summaries may be reproduced for not-for-profit educational purposes only. Any other uses must be approved by the American College of Physicians-American Society of Internal Medicine.
The summary below is from the full report titled "Reporting the Recruitment Process in Clinical Trials: Who Are These Patients and How Did They Get There?" It is in the 2 July 2002 issue of Annals of Internal Medicine (volume 137, pages 10-16). The authors are C Gross, R Mallory, A Heiat, and HM Krumholz.
What is the problem and what is known about it so far?
When researchers perform clinical studies comparing one treatment with another, they often use an experimental design known as a randomized, controlled trial (RCT). This design ensures that patients are randomly assigned to treatment groups in a way that will not bias the results by putting many people who are likely to respond favorably into one group and many who are not likely to respond into another. Although RCTs are generally accepted as the strongest way to design a clinical study, the usefulness of the findings depends not only on the strength of random assignment but also on how well the experimental patients represent all patients with the particular disease being studied.
Why did the researchers do this particular study?
The researchers wanted to find out whether RCTs published in good medical journals provided enough information about the selection of study participants to allow readers to judge whether most people with a particular disease could be expected to have the same results as the participants in the experiment.
What was studied?
172 RCTs involving humans that were published in four widely respected medical journals over a 1-year period beginning April 1, 1999.
How was the study done?
All RCTs published during that year were identified, and articles appropriate for evaluation were selected for review. The researchers then recorded how many articles provided information about the number of people screened for eligibility to participate in the study, how many described the number of people who were found to be eligible for participation, and how many people were actually enrolled. In addition, the researchers recorded the type of study being performed, where the money came from to perform the study, and the severity of the disease being studied.
What did the researchers find?
Only about half of the published RCTs reported the number of potential participants who were screened for eligibility. Forty-three percent reported how many people were eligible for participation, and 28% reported enough information to calculate what proportion of the screened population was found to be eligible for participation. The researchers also found that in order to recruit each participant for the study, more people needed to be screened if the disease being studied was more severe. Funding source did not appear to affect recruitment.
What were the limitations of the study?
Only four medical journals were included in the study, and RCTs they published may not be representative of all published RCTs.
What are the implications of the study?
More information needs to be provided about the people who take part in RCTs in order for clinicians to be able to judge whether the findings are applicable to all patients with a particular disease.
Related articles in Annals:
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  J. Lemieux, P. J. Goodwin, K. I. Pritchard, K. A. Gelmon, L. J. Bordeleau, T. Duchesne, S. Camden, and C. H. Speers Identification of Cancer Care and Protocol Characteristics Associated With Recruitment in Breast Cancer Clinical Trials J. Clin. Oncol., September 20, 2008; 26(27): 4458 - 4465. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 N. S. Hill, I. R. Preston, and K. E. Roberts Patients with Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension in Clinical Trials: Who Are They? Proceedings of the ATS, July 15, 2008; 5(5): 603 - 609. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. T. Crowley, G. M. Chertow, J. Vitale, T. O'Connor, J. Zhang, R. M.H. Schein, D. Choudhury, K. Finkel, A. Vijayan, E. Paganini, et al. Lessons for Successful Study Enrollment from the Veterans Affairs/National Institutes of Health Acute Renal Failure Trial Network Study Clin. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol., July 1, 2008; 3(4): 955 - 961. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. J. Pressler, U. Subramanian, R. M. Shaw, L. E. Meyer, K. Stoudemire, and I. Gradus-Pizlo Research in Patients With Heart Failure: Challenges in Recruitment Am. J. Crit. Care., May 1, 2008; 17(3): 198 - 203. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 L. B. Dunn, D. S. Kim, I. E. Fellows, and B. W. Palmer Worth the Risk? Relationship of Incentives to Risk and Benefit Perceptions and Willingness to Participate in Schizophrenia Research Schizophr Bull, February 14, 2008; (2008) sbn003v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. H. Halanych, M. M. Safford, W. C. Keys, S. D. Person, J. M. Shikany, Y.-I. Kim, R. M. Centor, and J. J. Allison Burden of Comorbid Medical Conditions and Quality of Diabetes Care Diabetes Care, December 1, 2007; 30(12): 2999 - 3004. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 B. D. Smith, B. G. Haffty, T. A. Buchholz, G. L. Smith, D. H. Galusha, J. E. Bekelman, and C. P. Gross Effectiveness of radiation therapy in older women with ductal carcinoma in situ. J Natl Cancer Inst, September 20, 2006; 98(18): 1302 - 1310. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. D. Smith, C. P. Gross, G. L. Smith, D. H. Galusha, J. E. Bekelman, and B. G. Haffty Effectiveness of radiation therapy for older women with early breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst, May 17, 2006; 98(10): 681 - 690. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 L. W. Green and R. E. Glasgow Evaluating the relevance, generalization, and applicability of research: issues in external validation and translation methodology. Eval Health Prof, March 1, 2006; 29(1): 126 - 153. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. R. Wright, S. Bouma, I. Dayes, J. Sussman, M. R. Simunovic, M. N. Levine, and T. J. Whelan The Importance of Reporting Patient Recruitment Details in Phase III Trials J. Clin. Oncol., February 20, 2006; 24(6): 843 - 845. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Wright, L. Fairclough, J. Manzo, L. Phippard, B. Smuck, and J. Lacourciere The Metrics of Clinical Trials J. Clin. Oncol., March 1, 2005; 23(7): 1589 - 1590. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 L. B. Dunn and N. E. Gordon Improving Informed Consent and Enhancing Recruitment for Research by Understanding Economic Behavior JAMA, February 2, 2005; 293(5): 609 - 612. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. E. Tinetti, S. T. Bogardus Jr., and J. V. Agostini Potential Pitfalls of Disease-Specific Guidelines for Patients with Multiple Conditions N. Engl. J. Med., December 30, 2004; 351(27): 2870 - 2874. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. A. Spertus, A. C. Salisbury, P. G. Jones, D. G. Conaway, and R. C. Thompson Predictors of Quality-of-Life Benefit After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Circulation, December 21, 2004; 110(25): 3789 - 3794. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
V. H. Murthy, H. M. Krumholz, and C. P. Gross Disparities in Participation in Cancer Clinical Trials--Reply JAMA, August 25, 2004; 292(8): 922 - 923. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. G. Unson, C. Ohannessian, L. Kenyon, A. Case, S. Reisine, and K. Prestwood Barriers to Eligibility and Enrollment Among Older Women in a Clinical Trial on Osteoporosis: Effects of Ethnicity and SES J Aging Health, June 1, 2004; 16(3): 426 - 443. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. R. Sears, A. L. Stanton, L. Kwan, J. L. Krupnick, J. H. Rowland, B. E. Meyerowitz, and P. A. Ganz Recruitment and Retention Challenges in Breast Cancer Survivorship Research: Results from a Multisite, Randomized Intervention Trial in Women with Early Stage Breast Cancer Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., October 1, 2003; 12(10): 1087 - 1090. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. Walsh and L. F. Ross Are Minority Children Under- or Overrepresented in Pediatric Research? Pediatrics, October 1, 2003; 112(4): 890 - 895. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. D. Halpern Reporting Enrollment in Clinical Trials Ann Intern Med, December 17, 2002; 137(12): 1007 - 1007. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. H. Friedman Reporting Enrollment in Clinical Trials Ann Intern Med, December 17, 2002; 137(12): 1007 - 1007. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. A. Abel Reporting Enrollment in Clinical Trials Ann Intern Med, December 17, 2002; 137(12): 1007 - 1007. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Article
