Home  |  About us  |  Editorial board  |  Ahead of print  | Current issue  |  Archives  |  Submit article  |  Instructions |  Search  |   Subscribe  |  Advertise  |  Contacts  |  Login 
  Users Online: 94Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size  
Year : 2015  |  Volume : 6  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 139-143

Reporting of pre-enrolment screening with randomized clinical trials: A small item that could impact a big difference

Department of Infection and Immunity Theme, The University of Queensland, UQ Centre for Clinical Research, Herston, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

Correspondence Address:
Tiffany M Harris-Brown
The University of Queensland, UQ Centre for Clinical Research, Herston, Brisbane, Queensland
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/2229-3485.159937

Rights and Permissions

Introduction: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), when conducted using ethical and transparent methods, become the ultimate standard for producing evidence-based knowledge in the field of medical research. We sought to determine the proportion of RCTs in which the number of screened patients is reported, and also to ascertain what predicted efficient screening (i.e., a high number of screened participants being enrolled). Materials and Methods: Thirty-five RCTs from the Journals Clinical Infectious Diseases and The Lancet Infectious Diseases were reviewed from the time period of January 2012 to July 2013 using standardised criteria. Results: From the 35 RCTs, 9 of 35 (26%) did not report the number of patients screened prior to recruitment. From the 26 studies that reported this screening figure, 10,215 (47%; range: 2-98%) of the screened participants (21,862) were subsequently enrolled. About 18.3% of those screened and not enrolled, met inclusion and exclusion criteria yet did not wish to participate in an RCT. Studies performed in developed countries and pediatric populations were more likely to have low rates of enrolment compared with the screened population although there was no statistical significance to these associations (P = 0.2 for both variables). Conclusion: Many reports of RCTs do not report screening figures, even though these add useful information about the feasibility of future trials.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded362    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 2    

Recommend this journal