Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Recruitment to publicly funded trials - are surgical trials really different?

By Jonathan Alistair Cook, Craig R Ramsay and John David Norrie

Abstract

Good recruitment is integral to the conduct of a high-quality randomised controlled trial. It has been suggested that recruitment is particularly difficult for evaluations of surgical interventions, a field in which there is a dearth of evidence from randomised comparisons. While there is anecdotal speculation to support the inference that recruitment to surgical trials is more challenging than for medical trials we are unaware of any formal assessment of this. In this paper, we compare recruitment to surgical and medical trials using a cohort of publicly funded trials. Data: Overall recruitment to trials was assessed using of a cohort of publicly funded trials (n = 114). Comparisons were made by using the Recruitment Index, a simple measure of recruitment activity for multicentre randomised controlled trials. Recruitment at the centre level was also investigated through three example surgical trials. Results: The Recruitment Index was found to be higher, though not statistically significantly, in the surgical group (n = 18, median = 38.0 IQR (10.7, 77.4)) versus (n = 81, median = 34.8 IQR (11.7, 98.0)) days per recruit for the medical group (median difference 1.7 (− 19.2, 25.1); p = 0.828). For the trials where the comparison was between a surgical and a medical intervention, the Recruitment Index was substantially higher (n = 6, 68.3 (23.5, 294.8)) versus (n = 93, 34.6 (11.7, 90.0); median difference 25.9 (− 35.5, 221.8); p = 0.291) for the other trials. Conclusions: There was no clear evidence that surgical trials differ from medical trials in terms of recruitment activity. There was, however, support for the inference that medical versus surgical trials are more difficult to recruit to. Formal exploration of the recruitment data through a modelling approach may go some way to tease out where important differences exist.The first author was supported by a Medical Research Council UK Fellowship.Peer reviewedAuthor versio

Topics: Clinical Trials as Topic, Patient Selection, Surgery, RA Public aspects of medicine
Publisher: Elsevier
Year: 2008
DOI identifier: 10.1016/j.cct.2008.02.005
OAI identifier: oai:aura.abdn.ac.uk:2164/257
Journal:

Suggested articles

Citations

  1. (2006). 11.0 for Windows user's guide. Chicago IL: doi
  2. A randomised controlled trial of laparoscopic nissen fundoplication versus proton pump inhibitors for treatment fo patients with chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease: one-year follow-up.
  3. (1999). Factors that limit the number, quality and progress of randomised controlled trials. Health Technol Assess
  4. Late-starter sites in randomized controlled trials. doi
  5. Open mesh versus laparoscopic mesh repair of inguinal hernia.
  6. (2003). Perspectives of evidence-based surgery. Dig Surg
  7. (2002). Randomised trials in surgery: problems and possible solutions. BMJ
  8. (1997). Recruitment for Controlled Trials: Literature Summary and Annotated Bibliography. Controlled Clinical Trials
  9. Recruitment index as a measure of patient recruitment activity in clinical trials. doi
  10. Stata Statistical Software: Release 10.0. College Station TX: Stata Corporation;2007.
  11. Surgical practice is evidence based.
  12. The challenge of evaluating surgical procedures.
  13. The challenge of recruiting patients with anterior cruciate ligament injury of the knee into a randomized trial comparing surgical and non-surgical treatment. doi
  14. (1998). The Ipswich Childbirth Study: 1. A randomized evaluation of two stage postpartum perineal repair leaving the skin unsutured.
  15. (2006). What influences recruitment to randomised controlled trials? A review of trials funded by two UK funding agencies. Trials

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.