ReviewA systematic review of discontinued trials suggested that most reasons for recruitment failure were preventable
Introduction
One quarter of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are prematurely discontinued [1]. RCT discontinuation represents a considerable waste of scarce research resources, in particular when the results and reasons for discontinuation are not published. The most common reason for RCT discontinuation is poor recruitment of participants [1]. Sharing the encountered recruitment difficulties with the scientific community is an important contribution to overcome similar problems in the future [2].
Qualitative and quantitative studies have already suggested various barriers and facilitators of recruitment [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. However, these studies were mostly restricted to specific countries or contexts; a current and comprehensive collection of recruitment barriers that led to the discontinuation of RCTs is still missing.
We conducted a qualitative systematic review of published RCTs discontinued due to poor recruitment to collect underlying reasons for recruitment failure as reported by trial investigators. We developed a comprehensive classification of reasons as orientation for investigators planning RCTs. A secondary objective of our study was to assess the reporting of recruitment in included RCT publications.
Section snippets
Eligibility criteria
We included RCT publications explicitly stating in their abstract that trials were discontinued due to poor recruitment of participants (i.e., the target sample size was not achieved). We did not impose any restrictions in terms of language of publications, RCT design, trial purpose (superiority/noninferiority/equivalence), or sample size. We did not consider interview studies, focus group studies, or surveys of trial participants or recruiting physicians independent of an actual RCT report.
Study selection
We
RCT characteristics
We identified a total of 172 eligible RCTs (148 through electronic search and 24 through the RCT cohort) that explicitly reported discontinuation due to poor recruitment in their abstract (Fig. 1). General characteristics of industry and non–industry-funded trials were very similar (Table 1).
Reporting quality
Of the 172 RCT publications, 76% reported one or more specific reasons for trial discontinuation due to poor recruitment. Most reports (83%) focused on results which were in 77% presented in sufficient
Discussion
We reviewed a total of 172 RCTs reporting trial discontinuation due to poor recruitment in their abstract. We identified a total of 28 different reasons for recruitment failure and categorized these in a way to provide orientation for trial investigators about common pitfalls. Investigators most frequently mentioned lack of eligible patients due to overestimated prevalence followed by prejudiced views of recruiters and participants on trial interventions; most reported reasons appeared
Conclusion
We identified 28 different reasons for poor recruitment leading to RCT discontinuation, most of which could be prevented. Our classification may serve as a checklist to remind investigators of crucial aspects. Detailed reporting of recruitment strategies, actual recruitment and retention rates, and publication of encountered recruitment difficulties would go a long way in helping other investigators in the planning of future RCTs and preventing the repetition of mistakes.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Christian Lengeler, Lars G. Hemkens, Mirjam Christ-Crain, Christiane Pauli-Magnus, Claudine A. Blum, Dominik Mertz, Jason W. Busse, and Gordon H. Guyatt for their valuable feedback on the classification of reasons for recruitment failure.
Ethical approval: For this type of study, formal consent is not required.
Authors' contributions: M.B., K.K.O., and S.S. conceived of the study, wrote the protocol, helped design the search strategy, collected data from included
References (37)
- et al.
Barriers to participation in randomised controlled trials: a systematic review
J Clin Epidemiol
(1999) - et al.
The intellectual challenges and emotional consequences of equipoise contributed to the fragility of recruitment in six randomized controlled trials
J Clin Epidemiol
(2014) - et al.
Barriers to participation in HIV drug trials: a systematic review
Lancet Infect Dis
(2006) - et al.
Barriers to participation in clinical trials of cancer: a meta-analysis and systematic review of patient-reported factors
Lancet Oncol
(2006) - et al.
A systematic review of reasons for nonentry of eligible patients into surgical randomized controlled trials
Surgery
(2006) - et al.
Pediatricians' attitudes toward randomized controlled trials involving children
J Pediatr
(2002) - et al.
Reporting of consent rates in critical care studies: room for improvement
J Clin Epidemiol
(2016) - et al.
Incomplete reporting of recruitment information in breast cancer trials published between 2003 and 2008
J Clin Epidemiol
(2011) - et al.
Recruitment rate for a clinical trial was associated with particular operational procedures and clinician characteristics
J Clin Epidemiol
(2014) - et al.
Prevalence, characteristics, and publication of discontinued randomized trials
JAMA
(2014)
Clear obstacles and hidden challenges: understanding recruiter perspectives in six pragmatic randomised controlled trials
Trials
An investigation of patients' motivations for their participation in genetics-related research
J Med Ethics
A systematic review highlights threats to validity in studies of barriers to cancer trial participation
J Clin Epidemiol
Recruitment barriers in a randomized controlled trial from the physicians' perspective: a postal survey
BMC Med Res Methodol
What influences recruitment to randomised controlled trials? A review of trials funded by two UK funding agencies
Trials
A review of reporting of participant recruitment and retention in RCTs in six major journals
Trials
Attitudes toward clinical trials among patients and the public
JAMA
Is recruitment more difficult with a placebo arm in randomised controlled trials? A quasirandomised, interview based study
BMJ
Cited by (129)
Why do people take part in vaccine trials? A mixed methods narrative synthesis
2023, Patient Education and CounselingSelective Publication within Vascular Surgery: Characteristics of Discontinued and Unpublished Randomized Clinical Trials
2023, Annals of Vascular SurgeryCost-effectiveness of social media advertising as a recruitment tool: A systematic review and meta-analysis
2023, Journal of Clinical and Translational ScienceThe challenge of completing a randomised clinical trial
2024, British Journal of Neurosurgery
Funding: This study was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (grant 320030_149496/1). The Swiss National Science Foundation had no role in the design and conduct of the study, analysis of the data, interpretation of the results, writing of the article, or the decision.
Conflict of interest: None.
- 1
Shared first authorship.