Cochrane · systematic review · MR000013
Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised trials
Treweek, S, Pitkethly, M, Cook, J, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2018 · Cochrane Library
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
7
current version
GRADE rated
7
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 1 · 14.3%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 3 · 42.9%High 3 · 42.9%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Current version onlyOpen trial versus blinded trial
Population: individuals eligible for a trial
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Number recruited Open trial vs blinded trial | RR 1.25 [1.18, 1.34] | 2 studies · 4833 participants | High |
Telephone reminder versus no telephone reminder
Population: individuals eligible for a trial
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Number recruited Telephone reminder vs no telephone reminder | RR 1.9 [1.35, 2.67] | 2 studies · 978 participants | High |
Bespoke, user‐tested participant information leaflet (PIL) vs usual PIL
Population: individuals eligible for trial
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Willingness to participate/number recruited Bespoke, user‐tested participant information leaflet (PIL) vs usual PIL | RR 1.15 [0.92, 1.44] | 3 studies · 6634 participants | High |
Brief participant information leaflet (PIL) vs usual PIL
Population: individuals eligible for a trial
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Number recruited Brief participant information leaflet (PIL) vs usual PIL | RR 1 [0.93, 1.07] | 2 studies · 4633 participants | Moderate Downgraded: indirectness |
Participant information leaflet (PIL) developed with feedback from users vs usual PIL
Population: individuals eligible for a trial
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Number recruited Participant information leaflet (PIL) developed with feedback from users vs usual PIL | RR 1.09 [0.96, 1.25] | 2 studies · 16763 participants | Moderate Downgraded: indirectness |
Providing information by video versus by standard means alone
Population: individuals eligible for trial
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Number recruited Providing information by video vs by standard means alone | RR 1.08 [0.89, 1.31] | 3 studies · 4695 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Financial incentive vs no incentive
Population: individuals eligible for a trial
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Number recruited Financial incentive vs no incentive | RR 1.48 [0.85, 2.58] | 6 studies · 1506 participants | Moderate Downgraded: inconsistency |
Telephone reminder versus no telephone reminder
Population: Individuals eligible for a trial
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Number recruited Telephone reminder vs no telephone reminder | OR 1.95 [1.04, 3.66] | 2 studies · 778 participants | Moderate Downgraded: inconsistency |
Open RCT versus blinded RCT
Population: Individuals eligible for a trial
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Number recruited Open RCT vs blinded RCT | RR 1.22 [1.09, 1.36] | 2 studies · 4833 participants | Moderate Downgraded: inconsistency |
Consent to experimental care versus usual consent
Population: Individuals eligible for trial
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Willingness to participate Consent to experimental care vs usual consent | RR 1.01 [0.98, 1.05] | 2 studies · 2456 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Consent to standard care versus usual consent
Population: Individuals eligible for trial
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Willingness to participate Consent to standard care vs usual consent | RR 0.76 [0.49, 1.17] | 2 studies · 1759 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Educational audiovisual information versus standard information
Population: Individuals eligible for trial
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Number recruited Educational audiovisual information vs standard information | RR 1.2 [0.75, 1.91] | 3 studies · 495 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Study‐related questionnaire + trial invitation versus trial invitation
Population: Individuals eligible for a trial
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Number recruited Study‐related questionnaire + trial invitation vs trial invitation | OR 1.17 [0.74, 1.87] | 2 studies · 2673 participants | Moderate |
Clinical trial booklet + standard information versus standard information
Population: Individuals eligible for trial
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Willingness to participate/number recruited Clinical trial booklet + standard information vs standard information | RR 1.11 [0.71, 1.72] | 2 studies · 91 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |