+ 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 improve participant recruitment to randomised controlled trials



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



Randomised controlled trials guard against selection bias and therefore offer the fairest way of evaluating healthcare interventions such as medicinal products, devices and services. Recruitment to trials can be extremely difficult, and poor recruitment can lead to extensions to both time and budget and may result in an underpowered study which does not satisfactorily answer the original research question. In the worst cases, a trial may be abandoned, causing huge waste. The evidence to support the choice of recruitment interventions is currently weak. Non-randomised evaluations of recruitment interventions are currently rejected on grounds of poor methodological quality, but systematic evaluation and assessment of this substantial body of work (using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) where possible) may provide useful information to support and inform the recruitment decisions of trialists and the research priorities of methodology researchers. The following databases will be searched for relevant studies: Cochrane Methodology Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO. Any non-randomised study that includes a comparison of two or more interventions to improve recruitment to randomised controlled trials will be included. We will not apply any restrictions on publication date, language or journal. The primary outcome will be the number of individuals or centres recruited into a randomised controlled trial. The secondary outcome will be cost per recruit. Two reviewers will independently screen abstracts for eligible studies, and then, full texts of potentially relevant records will be reviewed. Disagreements will be resolved through discussion. The methodological quality of studies will be assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for non-randomised studies, and the GRADE system will be used if studies are pooled. This review aims to summarise the evidence on methods used to improve recruitment to randomised controlled trials. Carrying out a systematic review including only data from non-randomised studies is a novel approach, and one which some may argue is futile. However, we believe that the systematic evaluation of what is likely to be a substantial amount of research activity is necessary, worthwhile, and will yield valuable results for the clinical trials community regardless of whether the outcomes find in favour of one or more interventions. Should the results of this review suggest that non-randomised evaluations do have something to offer trialists planning their recruitment strategies, the review may be combined in the future with the Cochrane review of randomised evaluations to produce a full review of recruitment strategies encompassing both randomised and non-randomised evaluation methods. PROSPERO CRD42016037718.

Please choose payment method:






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

Accession: 057088918

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 27485111

DOI: 10.1186/s13643-016-0308-3


Related references

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, 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

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

Methods to improve recruitment to randomised controlled trials: Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open 3(2), 2013

Evidence for strategies that improve recruitment and retention of adults aged 65 years and over in randomised trials and observational studies: a systematic review. Age and Ageing 46(6): 895-903, 2017

Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised controlled trials. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010(1): Mr000013, 2010

Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised controlled trials. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010(4): Mr000013, 2010

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

Detailed systematic analysis of recruitment strategies in randomised controlled trials in patients with an unscheduled admission to hospital. BMJ Open 8(2): E018581, 2018

Increasing recruitment to randomised trials: a review of randomised controlled trials. Bmc Medical Research Methodology 6: 34, 2006

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

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

Improving the recruitment activity of clinicians in randomised controlled trials: a systematic review. BMJ Open 2(1): E000496, 2012