What do systematic reviews say?

Remote or targeted source data verification vs 100% source data verification

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Monitoring strategies for clinical intervention studies 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Remote or targeted source data verification vs 100% source data verification

• Monitoring strategies for clinical intervention studies 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 126 participants
  Very low

Monitoring with vs without initiation visit

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Monitoring strategies for clinical intervention studies 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Monitoring with vs without initiation visit

• Monitoring strategies for clinical intervention studies 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 573 participants
  Very low

Monitoring with vs without initiation visit

• Monitoring strategies for clinical intervention studies 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 573 participants
  Very low

Risk‐based vs extensive on‐site monitoring

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Monitoring strategies for clinical intervention studies 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Monitoring with vs without initiation visit

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Monitoring strategies for clinical intervention studies 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Risk‐based vs extensive on‐site monitoring

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Monitoring strategies for clinical intervention studies 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Risk‐based vs extensive on‐site monitoring

• Monitoring strategies for clinical intervention studies 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  Low

Central monitoring with triggered vs untriggered on‐site visits

Central monitoring with triggered showed no clear difference in sites ≥ 1 major monitoring finding combined outcome compared with untriggered on‐site visits (low certainty).

• Monitoring strategies for clinical intervention studies 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.92 [0.4, 9.17]
  2 studies · 105 participants
  Low

Central monitoring with triggered vs untriggered on‐site visits

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Monitoring strategies for clinical intervention studies 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Central monitoring with triggered vs untriggered on‐site visits

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Monitoring strategies for clinical intervention studies 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Central monitoring with triggered vs untriggered on‐site visits

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Monitoring strategies for clinical intervention studies 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Central and local monitoring only vs central and local monitoring with on‐site visits

Central and local monitoring only probably leads to higher combined outcome of proportion of participants with major or… compared with central and local monitoring with on‐site visits (moderate certainty).

• Monitoring strategies for clinical intervention studies 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  OR 1.7 [1.1, 2.7]
  1 study · 4371 participants
  Moderate

Intervention not reported

• Financial conflicts of interest in systematic reviews: associations with results, conclusions, and methodological… 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  Very low

Intervention not reported

It is very uncertain whether the intervention changes frequency of statistically favourable results (very low certainty).

• Financial conflicts of interest in systematic reviews: associations with results, conclusions, and methodological… 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.84 [0.62, 1.14]
  Studies not reported
  Very low

Intervention not reported

The intervention may leads to higher frequency of favourable conclusions (low certainty).

• Financial conflicts of interest in systematic reviews: associations with results, conclusions, and methodological… 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.98 [1.26, 3.11]
  Studies not reported
  Low

Open trial vs blinded trial

Open trial leads to higher number recruited compared with blinded trial (high certainty).

• Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised trials 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.25 [1.18, 1.34]
  2 studies · 4833 participants
  High

Telephone reminder vs no telephone reminder

Telephone reminder leads to higher number recruited compared with no telephone reminder (high certainty).

• Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised trials 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.9 [1.35, 2.67]
  2 studies · 978 participants
  High

Bespoke, user‐tested participant information leaflet (PIL) vs usual PIL

Bespoke, user‐tested participant information leaflet (PIL) showed no clear difference in willingness to participate/number recruited compared with usual PIL (high certainty).

• Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised trials 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.15 [0.92, 1.44]
  3 studies · 6634 participants
  High