To review the reporting of key items of recruitment information in trial reports and estimate the number needed to screen to recruit one additional participant.
Study Design and Setting
Review of breast cancer trials published in the years 2003–2005, 2007, and 2008.
The search identified 1,570 potentially eligible studies. After a random selection of 20% from each year and checking against inclusion criteria, a total of 207 studies were included in the review. Some items of information were well reported, such as the number included in the analysis. Sample size calculations were often not presented, but reporting is slowly improving. Who recruits participants and how many individuals were screened are often not reported. The median number needed to screen to recruit one additional participant was two (range, 1–593).
Without reporting the when, where, by whom, and how many of recruitment, trialists deny readers part of the contextual description they need to judge whether a trial’s results are applicable to their own situation. Trialists and journal editors need to be more diligent in following the reporting recommendations of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
One-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:Subscribe to Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
- Randomisation to protect against selection bias in healthcare trials.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007; (Art. No.: MR000012)
- What influences recruitment to randomised controlled trials? A review of trials funded by two UK funding agencies.Trials. 2006; 7: 9
- Recruitment and retention in a multicentre randomised controlled trial in Bell’s palsy: a case study.BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007; 7: 15
- Survey among 78 studies showed that Lasagna’s law holds in Dutch primary care research.J Clin Epidemiol. 2007; 60: 819-824
- Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised controlled trials.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010; (Art. No.: MR000013)
- Increasing recruitment to randomised trials: a review of randomised controlled trials.BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006; 6: 34
- Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement.JAMA. 1996; 276: 637-639
- The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials.Lancet. 2001; 357: 1191-1194
- The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration.Ann Intern Med. 2001; 134: 663-694
- CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials.BMJ. 2010; 340: c869https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c869
- CONSORT Endorsers—Journals.(Available at)Accessed October 2010)
- Reporting the recruitment process in clinical trials: who are these patients and how did they get there?.Ann Intern Med. 2002; 137: 10-16
- A review of reporting of participant recruitment and retention in RCTs in six major journals.Trials. 2009; 10: 52
- Patterns of patient enrolment in randomized controlled trials.J Clin Epidemiol. 2001; 54: 877-883
- How evidence-based are recruitment strategies for randomized controlled trials in primary care? Experience from seven studies.Fam Pract. 2003; 20: 83-92
- Taking healthcare interventions from trial to practice.BMJ. 2010; 341: c3852
- Making trials matter: pragmatic and explanatory trials and the problem of applicability.Trials. 2009; 10: 37
Published online: April 25, 2011
Accepted: January 28, 2011
Conflict of interest: Both authors declare no conflict of interest.
© 2011 Elsevier Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.