...
首页> 外文期刊>BMJ Open >Methods to improve recruitment to randomised controlled trials: Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis
【24h】

Methods to improve recruitment to randomised controlled trials: Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis

机译:改善随机对照试验招募的方法:Cochrane系统评价和荟萃分析

获取原文
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

This review is an abridged version of a Cochrane Review previously published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 4, Art. No.: MR000013 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub5 (see www.thecochranelibrary.com for information). Cochrane Reviews are regularly updated as new evidence emerges and in response to feedback, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews should be consulted for the most recent version of the review. Objective To identify interventions designed to improve recruitment to randomised controlled trials, and to quantify their effect on trial participation. Design Systematic review. Data sources The Cochrane Methodology Review Group Specialised Register in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, ERIC, Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, C2-SPECTR, the National Research Register and PubMed. Most searches were undertaken up to 2010; no language restrictions were applied. Study selection Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials, including those recruiting to hypothetical studies. Studies on retention strategies, examining ways to increase questionnaire response or evaluating the use of incentives for clinicians were excluded. The study population included any potential trial participant (eg, patient, clinician and member of the public), or individual or group of individuals responsible for trial recruitment (eg, clinicians, researchers and recruitment sites). Two authors independently screened identified studies for eligibility. Results 45 trials with over 43?000 participants were included. Some interventions were effective in increasing recruitment: telephone reminders to non-respondents (risk ratio (RR) 1.66, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.46; two studies, 1058 participants), use of opt-out rather than opt-in procedures for contacting potential participants (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.84; one study, 152 participants) and open designs where participants know which treatment they are receiving in the trial (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.36; two studies, 4833 participants). However, the effect of many other strategies is less clear, including the use of video to provide trial information and interventions aimed at recruiters. Conclusions There are promising strategies for increasing recruitment to trials, but some methods, such as open-trial designs and opt-out strategies, must be considered carefully as their use may also present methodological or ethical challenges. Questions remain as to the applicability of results originating from hypothetical trials, including those relating to the use of monetary incentives, and there is a clear knowledge gap with regard to effective strategies aimed at recruiters.
机译:该评价是先前在《 Cochrane系统评价数据库2010,第4期》中发表的Cochrane评价的删节版。编号:MR000013 DOI:10.1002 / 14651858.MR000013.pub5(有关信息,请参见www.thecochranelibrary.com)。随着新证据的出现以及对反馈的响应,Cochrane评价会定期进行更新,应查阅Cochrane系统评价数据库以获取最新版本的评价。目的确定旨在改善随机对照试验招募的干预措施,并量化其对试验参与的影响。设计系统审查。数据来源Cochrane图书馆中的Cochrane方法学审查小组专业注册,MEDLINE,EMBASE,ERIC,科学引文索引,社会科学引文索引,C2-SPECTR,国家研究注册簿和PubMed。大部分搜索是在2010年之前进行的;没有语言限制。研究选择随机和半随机对照试验,包括那些接受假设性研究的试验。保留策略,研究增加问卷答复的方式或评估对临床医生的激励措施的研究被排除在外。研究人群包括任何潜在的试验参与者(例如患者,临床医生和公众成员),或负责试验招募的个人或个人小组(例如临床医生,研究人员和招募地点)。两位作者独立筛选了已确定资格的研究。结果纳入了45项试验,涉及43 000多名参与者。一些干预措施有效地提高了招募人数:向未答复者进行电话提醒(风险比(RR)1.66,95%CI 1.03至2.46;两项研究,1058名参与者),使用选择退出而不是选择加入程序来联系潜在客户参与者(RR 1.39,95%CI 1.06至1.84;一项研究,152名参与者)和开放设计,让参与者知道他们在试验中正在接受哪种治疗(RR 1.22,95%CI 1.09至1.36;两项研究,4833名参与者)。但是,许多其他策略的效果还不太清楚,包括使用视频来提供试验信息和针对招聘人员的干预措施。结论有增加前瞻性招募试验的有希望的策略,但是必须谨慎考虑某些方法,例如开放式试验设计和选择退出策略,因为使用它们还可能带来方法论或道德挑战。源自假设试验的结果的适用性仍然存在疑问,包括与使用金钱奖励有关的结果,在针对招聘者的有效策略方面存在明显的知识差距。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号