Incomplete reporting of recruitment information in breast cancer trials published between 2003 and 2008

Shaun Treweek*, Kirsty Loudon

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: 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.

Results: 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).

Conclusions: 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. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1216-1222
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume64
Issue number11
Early online date23 Apr 2011
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Nov 2011

Keywords

  • quality
  • randomized controlled trials
  • recruitment
  • consort statement
  • breast cancer
  • retention
  • primary-care

Cite this

Incomplete reporting of recruitment information in breast cancer trials published between 2003 and 2008. / Treweek, Shaun; Loudon, Kirsty.

In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Vol. 64, No. 11, 11.2011, p. 1216-1222.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{356155c8dbdc49a59adbb9a3fec6757c,
title = "Incomplete reporting of recruitment information in breast cancer trials published between 2003 and 2008",
abstract = "Objectives: 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.Results: 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).Conclusions: 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. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.",
keywords = "quality, randomized controlled trials, recruitment, consort statement, breast cancer, retention, primary-care",
author = "Shaun Treweek and Kirsty Loudon",
note = "Acknowledgments This work was in part supported by the Scottish Funding Council as part of the Scottish Collaboration of Trialists project.",
year = "2011",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.01.007",
language = "English",
volume = "64",
pages = "1216--1222",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Epidemiology",
issn = "0895-4356",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Incomplete reporting of recruitment information in breast cancer trials published between 2003 and 2008

AU - Treweek, Shaun

AU - Loudon, Kirsty

N1 - Acknowledgments This work was in part supported by the Scottish Funding Council as part of the Scottish Collaboration of Trialists project.

PY - 2011/11

Y1 - 2011/11

N2 - Objectives: 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.Results: 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).Conclusions: 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. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

AB - Objectives: 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.Results: 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).Conclusions: 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. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

KW - quality

KW - randomized controlled trials

KW - recruitment

KW - consort statement

KW - breast cancer

KW - retention

KW - primary-care

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.01.007

DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.01.007

M3 - Article

VL - 64

SP - 1216

EP - 1222

JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

SN - 0895-4356

IS - 11

ER -