+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

A protocol for a systematic review of non-randomised evaluations of strategies to increase participant retention to randomised controlled trials



A protocol for a systematic review of non-randomised evaluations of strategies to increase participant retention to randomised controlled trials



Systematic Reviews 7(1): 30



Randomised control trials are regarded as the gold standard for evaluating the effectiveness and efficacy of healthcare interventions with thousands of trials published every year. Despite significant investment in infrastructure, a staggering number of clinical trials continue to face challenges with retention. Dropouts could lead to negative consequences-from lengthy delays to missing data that can undermine the results and integrity of the trial. Summarising evidence from non-randomised evaluations of retention strategies could provide complementary information to randomised evaluations that could guide trialists to the most effective ways of increasing retention of participants in clinical trials. The following electronic databases will be searched for relevant studies: EMBASE, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, and Cochrane Methodology Register and the search will be limited to English-published studies during the last 10 years to increase relevance to current trials. Non-randomised studies (observational studies) including a comparison of two or more strategies to increase participant retention in randomised trials or comparing one or more strategies with no strategy will be included. The primary outcome will be the proportion of participants remained at the primary analysis as determined in each retention study. This review aims to gather and evaluate evidence on the effect of retention strategies examined in non-randomised studies. It is imperative to collect evidence from obseravational studies to infer whether or not these studies could be considered a practical way to complement or even replace a broadly favourable randomised design. If we find that non-randomised studies to be included in this review are of high quality with adequate control of biases, we will recommend to trialists and others not to rely exclusively on randomised studies and to give meticulous attention to the plentiful evidence that can be obtained from non-randomised studies. Should the results of this review suggest that evaluating retention strategies in observational studies provides insufficient evidence to trialists planning their retention strategies, we will be able to say that there is little point in conducting non-randomised studies and that they would do better to invest their time and resources in a randomised evaluation if possible. Where a non-randomised study design is chosen, the review authors will offer recommendations to trialists and others regarding how to ensure that these studies are conducted in a way that can minimise the risk of bias and increase confidence in the findings. PROSPERO 2017: CRD42017072775 .

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 049334265

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 29458415

DOI: 10.1186/s13643-018-0696-7


Related references

A protocol for a systematic review of non-randomised evaluations of strategies to improve participant recruitment to randomised controlled trials. Systematic Reviews 5(1): 131, 2018

Identifying the participant characteristics that predict recruitment and retention of participants to randomised controlled trials involving children: a systematic review. Trials 17(1): 294, 2017

Identifying additional studies for a systematic review of retention strategies in randomised controlled trials: making contact with trials units and trial methodologists. Systematic Reviews 6(1): 167, 2018

Examining the use of process evaluations of randomised controlled trials of complex interventions addressing chronic disease in primary health care-a systematic review protocol. Systematic Reviews 5(1): 138, 2018

The effectiveness of patient-centred medical home model versus standard primary care in chronic disease management: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised and non-randomised controlled trials. Systematic Reviews 7(1): 215, 2018

Systematic Techniques to Enhance rEtention in Randomised controlled trials: the STEER study protocol. Trials 19(1): 197, 2018

Vitamin D to prevent exacerbations of COPD: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data from randomised controlled trials. Thorax 2019, 2019

FTO genotype and weight loss: systematic review and meta-analysis of 9563 individual participant data from eight randomised controlled trials. BMJ 354: I4707, 2017

Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials: a Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open 4(2): E003821, 2014

The quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials in asthma: systematic review protocol. Primary Care Respiratory Journal 22(1): Ps1-Ps8, 2013

The effectiveness of art therapy for anxiety in adults: A systematic review of randomised and non-randomised controlled trials. Plos One 13(12): E0208716-E0208716, 2018

The Effect of Perioperative E-Health Interventions on the Postoperative Course: A Systematic Review of Randomised and Non-Randomised Controlled Trials. Plos One 11(7): E0158612, 2017

Strategies for increasing recruitment to randomised controlled trials: systematic review. Plos Medicine 7(11): E1000368, 2011

Factors associated with recruitment to randomised controlled trials in general practice: protocol for a systematic review. Trials 20(1): 266, 2019

Psychosocial interventions in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women: a systematic review of randomised and non-randomised trials and non-controlled studies. Maturitas 77(2): 93-110, 2014