• We are sorry, but NCBI web applications do not support your browser and may not function properly. More information
Logo of bmjcredLink to Publisher's site
Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). Nov 10, 1984; 289(6454): 1281–1284.
PMCID: PMC1443545

Applying results of randomised trials to clinical practice: impact of losses before randomisation.

Abstract

The problem of generalisability in randomised clinical trials was highlighted by studies that entered only 10-14% of screened patients. To determine the magnitude and source of prerandomisation losses in clinical trials a survey was conducted of 41 trials listed in the 1979 inventory of the National Institute of Health. Two thirds of the trials maintained screening logs, but only half maintained any records of the number of patients who met the eligibility criteria but were not entered into the trial. Among 21 trials (51%) that kept data on the number of patients who were eligible but not entered, losses of eligible subjects were attributable to refusals by patients in 25% and refusals by physicians in 29%. Other protocol requirements accounted for the remaining losses of eligible patients. Only a few trials documented the characteristics of patients who were eligible but not entered; in those trials the patients who were not entered were similar demographically but differed clinically from those enrolled. Thus minimising prerandomisation losses of eligible patients requires the use of less restrictive criteria for entering patients. Twenty four of the trials achieved 75% or more of their recruitment goals, eight between 25% and 74%, and six less than 25%. Among trials that screened less than twice their projected sample size, only three out of 13 (23%) achieved 75% or more of their recruitment goal. By contrast, 12 out of 16 trials (75%) that screened more than twice their projected sample size achieved 75% or more of their recruitment goal. Screening large numbers of patients appears to be a pragmatic requirement for success in achieving recruitment goals; therefore, trials should not be criticised as lacking generalisability on that basis alone. The number and characteristics of eligible patients who were not entered, however, were documented by only a few trials; these data are critical in the assessment of generalisability. Additionally, the number of patients with the index disease who did not meet the eligibility criteria should also be documented. Together, these two types of data characterise the population to whom the trial results may be applied.

Full text

Full text is available as a scanned copy of the original print version. Get a printable copy (PDF file) of the complete article (892K), or click on a page image below to browse page by page. Links to PubMed are also available for Selected References.

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
  • Gore SM. Assessing, clinical trials-- protocol and monitoring. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1981 Aug 1;283(6287):369–371. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Hampton JR. Presentation and analysis of the results of clinical trials in cardiovascular disease. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1981 Apr 25;282(6273):1371–1373. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Mitchell JR. Timolol after myocardial infarction: an answer or a new set of questions? Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1981 May 16;282(6276):1565–1570. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Whisnant JP. The Canadian trial of aspirin and sulfinpyrazone in threatened stroke. Am Heart J. 1980 Jan;99(1):129–130. [PubMed]
  • Loop FD, Proudfit WL, Sheldon WC. Coronary bypass surgery weighed in the balance. Am J Cardiol. 1978 Jul;42(1):154–156. [PubMed]
  • Fost N. Sounding Board. Consent as a barrier to research. N Engl J Med. 1979 May 31;300(22):1272–1273. [PubMed]
  • Zelen M. A new design for randomized clinical trials. N Engl J Med. 1979 May 31;300(22):1242–1245. [PubMed]
  • Sackett DL, Gent M. Controversy in counting and attributing events in clinical trials. N Engl J Med. 1979 Dec 27;301(26):1410–1412. [PubMed]
  • Bergstrand R, Vedin A, Wilhelmsson C, Wilhelmsen L. Bias due to non-participation and heterogenous sub-groups in population surveys. J Chronic Dis. 1983;36(10):725–728. [PubMed]
  • Greenlick MR, Bailey JW, Wild J, Grover J. Characteristics of men most likely to respond to an invitation to be screened. Am J Public Health. 1979 Oct;69(10):1011–1015. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Criqui MH, Barrett-Connor E, Austin M. Differences between respondents and non-respondents in a population-based cardiovascular disease study. Am J Epidemiol. 1978 Nov;108(5):367–372. [PubMed]
  • Jackson FC, Perrin EB, Smith AG, Dagradi AE, Nadal HM. A clinical investigation of the portacaval shunt. II. Survival analysis of the prophylactic operation. Am J Surg. 1968 Jan;115(1):22–42. [PubMed]
  • Conn HO, Lindenmuth WW, May CJ, Ramsby GR. Prophylactic portacaval anastomosis. Medicine (Baltimore) 1972 Jan;51(1):27–40. [PubMed]
  • Greenland S. Response and follow-up bias in cohort studies. Am J Epidemiol. 1977 Sep;106(3):184–187. [PubMed]

Articles from British Medical Journal (Clinical Research Ed.) are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

Formats:

Related citations in PubMed

See reviews...See all...

Cited by other articles in PMC

See all...

Links

  • Cited in Books
    Cited in Books
    PubMed Central articles cited in books
  • PubMed
    PubMed
    PubMed citations for these articles

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...