Participant and trial characteristics reported in predictive analyses of trial attrition: an umbrella review of systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials across multiple conditions.

IF 2 4区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Trials Pub Date : 2025-03-12 DOI:10.1186/s13063-025-08794-x
Ryan McChrystal, Jennifer Lees, Katie Gillies, David McAllister, Peter Hanlon
{"title":"Participant and trial characteristics reported in predictive analyses of trial attrition: an umbrella review of systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials across multiple conditions.","authors":"Ryan McChrystal, Jennifer Lees, Katie Gillies, David McAllister, Peter Hanlon","doi":"10.1186/s13063-025-08794-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Trial attrition poses several risks for the validity of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). To better understand attrition, studies have explored and identified predictors among participant and trial characteristics. Reviews of these have so far been limited to single conditions. We performed an umbrella review to explore which participant and trial characteristics are reported in predictive analyses of trial attrition in systematic reviews of RCTs across multiple conditions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and the Online Resource for Research in Clinical TriAls for systematic reviews of RCTs that evaluated associations between participant/trial characteristics and attrition. We included quantitative systematic reviews of adult populations that evaluated any participant/trial characteristic and any attrition outcome. Review quality was appraised using R-AMSTAR. A review-level narrative synthesis was conducted.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 88 reviews of RCTs evaluating characteristics associated with attrition. Included reviews encompassed 33 different conditions. Over half (50/88, 56.8%) were of RCTs for psychological conditions. All but one examined trial characteristics (87/88, 98.9%) and fewer than half (42/88, 47.7%) evaluated participant characteristics. Reviews typically reported on participant age (33/42, 78.6%), sex (29/42, 69.1%) and the type (13/42, 31%) or severity (10/42, 23.8%) of an index condition. Trial characteristics typically reported on were intervention type (56/87, 64.4%), intervention frequency/intensity (29/87, 33.3%), intervention delivery/format (26/87, 29.9%), trial duration (16/87, 18.4%), publication/reporting year (15/87, 17.2%) and sample size (15/87, 31.9%). Retention strategies were rarely reported (2/87, 2.3%). No characteristic was examined for every condition. Some reviews of certain conditions found that age (12/33, 36.4%), intervention type (29/56, 51.8%) and trial duration (9/16, 56.3%) were associated with attrition, but no characteristic was reportedly associated across multiple conditions.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Across conditions, reviews conducting predictive analyses of attrition in RCTs typically report on several characteristics. These are participant age, sex and the type or severity of index condition, as well as the type, frequency or intensity and delivery or format of a trial intervention, trial duration, publication/reporting year and sample size. Future studies should consider exploring these characteristics as a core set when evaluating predictive factors of attrition in RCTs across multiple conditions.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>PROSPERO CRD42023398276.</p>","PeriodicalId":23333,"journal":{"name":"Trials","volume":"26 1","pages":"84"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11900635/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Trials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-025-08794-x","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Trial attrition poses several risks for the validity of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). To better understand attrition, studies have explored and identified predictors among participant and trial characteristics. Reviews of these have so far been limited to single conditions. We performed an umbrella review to explore which participant and trial characteristics are reported in predictive analyses of trial attrition in systematic reviews of RCTs across multiple conditions.

Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and the Online Resource for Research in Clinical TriAls for systematic reviews of RCTs that evaluated associations between participant/trial characteristics and attrition. We included quantitative systematic reviews of adult populations that evaluated any participant/trial characteristic and any attrition outcome. Review quality was appraised using R-AMSTAR. A review-level narrative synthesis was conducted.

Results: We identified 88 reviews of RCTs evaluating characteristics associated with attrition. Included reviews encompassed 33 different conditions. Over half (50/88, 56.8%) were of RCTs for psychological conditions. All but one examined trial characteristics (87/88, 98.9%) and fewer than half (42/88, 47.7%) evaluated participant characteristics. Reviews typically reported on participant age (33/42, 78.6%), sex (29/42, 69.1%) and the type (13/42, 31%) or severity (10/42, 23.8%) of an index condition. Trial characteristics typically reported on were intervention type (56/87, 64.4%), intervention frequency/intensity (29/87, 33.3%), intervention delivery/format (26/87, 29.9%), trial duration (16/87, 18.4%), publication/reporting year (15/87, 17.2%) and sample size (15/87, 31.9%). Retention strategies were rarely reported (2/87, 2.3%). No characteristic was examined for every condition. Some reviews of certain conditions found that age (12/33, 36.4%), intervention type (29/56, 51.8%) and trial duration (9/16, 56.3%) were associated with attrition, but no characteristic was reportedly associated across multiple conditions.

Conclusions: Across conditions, reviews conducting predictive analyses of attrition in RCTs typically report on several characteristics. These are participant age, sex and the type or severity of index condition, as well as the type, frequency or intensity and delivery or format of a trial intervention, trial duration, publication/reporting year and sample size. Future studies should consider exploring these characteristics as a core set when evaluating predictive factors of attrition in RCTs across multiple conditions.

Registration: PROSPERO CRD42023398276.

试验损耗预测分析中报告的参与者和试验特征:对多条件下随机对照试验系统评价的总括性回顾。
背景:试验损耗对随机对照试验(RCTs)的有效性构成若干风险。为了更好地理解损耗,研究已经探索并确定了参与者和试验特征之间的预测因素。迄今为止,这些审查仅限于单一条件。我们进行了一项总括性综述,以探索在多条件下的随机对照试验的系统综述中,在试验损耗的预测分析中报告了哪些参与者和试验特征。方法:我们检索MEDLINE、Embase、Web of Science和在线临床试验研究资源,对评估参与者/试验特征与损耗之间关系的随机对照试验进行系统评价。我们纳入了成年人群的定量系统评价,评估了任何参与者/试验特征和任何损耗结果。采用R-AMSTAR评价评审质量。进行了综述级的叙述综合。结果:我们确定了88篇评价与磨耗相关特征的随机对照试验。纳入的审查包括33种不同的情况。超过一半(50/88,56.8%)是心理状况的随机对照试验。除1例外,其余均检查了试验特征(87/88,98.9%),不到一半(42/88,47.7%)评估了参与者特征。综述通常报告了参与者的年龄(33/ 42,78.6%)、性别(29/ 42,69.1%)和指标疾病的类型(13/ 42,31%)或严重程度(10/ 42,23.8%)。通常报告的试验特征为干预类型(56/87,64.4%)、干预频率/强度(29/87,33.3%)、干预方式/形式(26/87,29.9%)、试验持续时间(16/87,18.4%)、发表/报告年份(15/87,17.2%)和样本量(15/87,31.9%)。留存策略很少被报道(2/87,2.3%)。没有对每种情况检查特征。一些对某些条件的回顾发现,年龄(12/33,36.4%)、干预类型(29/56,51.8%)和试验持续时间(9/16,56.3%)与磨耗有关,但没有多条件相关的特征报道。结论:在各种情况下,在随机对照试验中进行减员预测分析的综述通常报告几个特征。这些指标包括参与者的年龄、性别和指标状况的类型或严重程度,以及试验干预的类型、频率或强度、交付或形式、试验持续时间、发表/报告年份和样本量。未来的研究应考虑将这些特征作为评估多条件下随机对照试验中减员预测因素的核心。注册号:PROSPERO CRD42023398276。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Trials
Trials 医学-医学:研究与实验
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
4.00%
发文量
966
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Trials is an open access, peer-reviewed, online journal that will encompass all aspects of the performance and findings of randomized controlled trials. Trials will experiment with, and then refine, innovative approaches to improving communication about trials. We are keen to move beyond publishing traditional trial results articles (although these will be included). We believe this represents an exciting opportunity to advance the science and reporting of trials. Prior to 2006, Trials was published as Current Controlled Trials in Cardiovascular Medicine (CCTCVM). All published CCTCVM articles are available via the Trials website and citations to CCTCVM article URLs will continue to be supported.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信