review Open AccessTop 1% cited
Recruitment and retention of participants in randomised controlled trials: a review of trials funded and published by the United Kingdom Health Technology Assessment Programme
BMJ Open · 2017 · Vol. 7(3) · pp. e015276–e015276
Stephen J. Walters✉(University of Sheffield)Inês B. Henriques(University of Sheffield)Oscar Bortolami(University of Sheffield)Laura Flight(University of Sheffield)Daniel Hind(University of Sheffield)Richard Jacques(University of Sheffield)Christopher Knox(University of Sheffield)Ben Nadin(University of Sheffield)Joanne Rothwell(University of Sheffield)Michael Surtees(University of Sheffield)Steven A. Julious(University of Sheffield)
Abstract
There is considerable variation in the consent, recruitment and retention rates in publicly funded RCTs. Investigators should bear this in mind at the planning stage of their study and not be overly optimistic about their recruitment projections.
Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsHealth and Medical Research ImpactsMedicineAlternative medicineFamily medicineClinical trialRandomized controlled trialMEDLINEGerontologyInternal medicinePathology
MeSH terms
Cost-Benefit AnalysisUnited KingdomHumansPatient DropoutsTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalMulticenter Studies as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicPatient Selection
Funding
- National Institute for Health and Care Research
Citations
587
FWCI
207.38
field-weighted impact
References
55
Percentile
100%
vs. same field & year
Citations per year
References
A wilcoxon‐type test for trend
Statistics in Medicine · 1985 · 1,899 citations
Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement
JAMA · 1996 · 3,349 citations
CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials
BMJ · 2010 · 8,414 citations
Citation Network
How this paper connects to the literature. Drag to explore, click any node to open that paper.