Factors influencing the enrollment in randomized controlled trials in orthopedics

Christopher T Lim, Heather J Roberts, Jamie E Collins, Elena Losina, Jeffrey N Katz, Christopher T Lim, Heather J Roberts, Jamie E Collins, Elena Losina, Jeffrey N Katz

Abstract

Background: Low enrollment rates are a threat to the external validity of clinical trials. The purpose of this study was to identify factors associated with lower enrollment rates in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving orthopedic procedures.

Methods: We performed a search in PubMed/MEDLINE for RCTs that involved any orthopedic surgical procedure, compared different intraoperative interventions, were published in English in a peer-reviewed journal between 2003 and 2014, and reported the numbers of both enrolled and eligible subjects. The primary outcome was the enrollment rate, defined as the number of enrolled subjects divided by the number of eligible subjects. We used a meta-regression to identify factors associated with lower enrollment rates.

Results: The combined estimate of enrollment rate across all 393 studies meeting inclusion criteria was 90% (95% CI: 89-92%). Trials in North America had significantly lower enrollment rates compared to trials in the rest of the world (80% vs. 92%, p < 0.0001). Trials comparing operative and non-operative treatments had significantly lower enrollment rates than trials comparing two different operative interventions (80% vs. 91%, p < 0.0001). Among trials comparing operative and non-operative interventions, there was a marked difference in enrollment rate by region: 49% in North America and 86% elsewhere (p < 0.0001).

Conclusions: RCTs investigating orthopedic procedures have variable enrollment rates depending on their location and the difference between the interventions being studied. North American trials that compare operative and non-operative interventions have the lowest enrollment rates. Investigators planning RCTs would be well advised to consider these data in planning recruitment efforts.

Keywords: Orthopedics; Randomized controlled trials; Recruitment.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Paper inclusion flow chart.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Proportion of included papers (i.e., meeting all inclusion criteria) to papers meeting all inclusion criteria except reporting of number of eligible subjects, by publication year (Pearson correlation coefficient r = 0.966, p 

References

    1. Sibai T., Carlisle H., Tornetta P., 3rd The darker side of randomized trials: recruitment challenges. J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 2012;94(Suppl 1):49–55.
    1. McDonald A.M., Knight R.C., Campbell M.K. What influences recruitment to randomised controlled trials? A review of trials funded by two UK funding agencies. Trials. 2006;7:9.
    1. Haidich A.B., Ioannidis J.P. Patterns of patient enrollment in randomized controlled trials. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2001;54:877–883.
    1. Bower P., Brueton V., Gamble C. Interventions to improve recruitment and retention in clinical trials: a survey and workshop to assess current practice and future priorities. Trials. 2014;15:399.
    1. Katz J.N., Brophy R.H., Chaisson C.E. Surgery versus physical therapy for a meniscal tear and osteoarthritis. N. Engl. J. Med. 2013;368:1675–1684.
    1. Moseley J.B., O'Malley K., Petersen N.J. A controlled trial of arthroscopic surgery for osteoarthritis of the knee. N. Engl. J. Med. 2002;347:81–88.
    1. Herrlin S., Hallander M., Wange P. Arthroscopic or conservative treatment of degenerative medial meniscal tears: a prospective randomised trial. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2007;15:393–401.
    1. Horng S., Miller F.G. Is placebo surgery unethical? N. Engl. J. Med. 2002;347:137–139.
    1. Leighton P., Lonsdale A.J., Tildsley J. The willingness of patients presenting with advanced glaucoma to participate in a trial comparing primary medical vs primary surgical treatment. Eye (Lond) 2012;26:300–306.
    1. Abraham N.S., Young J.M., Solomon M.J. A systematic review of reasons for nonentry of eligible patients into surgical randomized controlled trials. Surgery. 2006;139:469–483.
    1. Ross S., Grant A., Counsell C. Barriers to participation in randomised controlled trials: a systematic review. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 1999;52:1143–1156.
    1. Wright J.R., Whelan T.J., Schiff S. Why cancer patients enter randomized clinical trials: exploring the factors that influence their decision. J. Clin. Oncol. 2004;22:4312–4318.
    1. Featherstone K., Donovan J.L. “Why don't they just tell me straight, why allocate it?” the struggle to make sense of participating in a randomised controlled trial. Soc. Sci. Med. 2002;55:709–719.
    1. Creel A.H., Losina E., Mandl L.A. An assessment of willingness to participate in a randomized trial of arthroscopic knee surgery in patients with osteoarthritis. Contemp. Clin. Trials. 2005;26:169–178.
    1. Myles P.S., Fletcher H.E., Cairo S. Randomized trial of informed consent and recruitment for clinical trials in the immediate preoperative period. Anesthesiology. 1999;91:969–978.
    1. Ganz P.A., Land S.R., Antonio C. Cancer survivorship research: the challenge of recruiting adult long term cancer survivors from a cooperative clinical trials group. J. Cancer Surviv. 2009;3:137–147.
    1. Cook J.A., Ramsay C.R., Norrie J. Recruitment to publicly funded trials–are surgical trials really different? Contemp. Clin. Trials. 2008;29:631–634.
    1. Hamza T.H., van Houwelingen H.C., Stijnen T. The binomial distribution of meta-analysis was preferred to model within-study variability. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2008;61:41–51.
    1. Chang B.H., Waternaux C., Lipsitz S. Meta-analysis of binary data: which within study variance estimate to use? Stat. Med. 2001;20:1947–1956.
    1. Moher D., Liberati A., Tetzlaff J. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339:b2535.
    1. Butler J., Subacius H., Vaduganathan M. Relationship between clinical trial site enrollment with participant characteristics, protocol completion, and outcomes: insights from the EVEREST (Efficacy of Vasopressin Antagonism in Heart Failure: outcome Study with Tolvaptan) trial. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2013;61:571–579.
    1. Begg C., Cho M., Eastwood S. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. JAMA. 1996;276:637–639.
    1. Moher D., Schulz K.F., Altman D.G. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. Ann. Intern Med. 2001;134:657–662.
    1. Schulz K.F., Altman D.G., Moher D. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. Ann. Intern Med. 2010;152:726–732.

Source: PubMed

Sponsoren und Mitarbeiter

Krankheiten

Drogeninterventionen

3
Abonnieren