Cited by 151Ethics in Clinical ResearchHealth Policy Implementation ScienceOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment

Recruitment to multicentre trials—lessons from UKCTOCS: descriptive study

Open access
Menon, U., Gentry-Maharaj, A., Ryan, A., Sharma, A., Burnell, M., Hallett, R., Lewis, S., Lopez, A. +19 more·2008·BMJ

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To describe the factors that contributed to successful recruitment of more than 200,000 women to the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening, one of the largest ever randomised controlled trials. DESIGN: Descriptive study. SETTING: 13 NHS trusts in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. PARTICIPANTS: Postmenopausal women aged 50-74; exclusion criteria included ovarian malignancy, bilateral oophorectomy, increased risk of familial ovarian cancer, active non-ovarian malignancy, and participation in other ovarian cancer screening trials. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Achievement of target recruitment, acceptance rates of invitation, and recruitment rates. RESULTS: The trial was set up in 13 centres with 27 adjoining local health authorities. The coordinating centre team was led by one of the senior investigators, who was closely involved in planning and day to day trial management. Of 1 243,282 women invited, 23.2% (288 955) replied that they were eligible and would like to participate. Of those sent appointments, 73.6% (205 090) attended for recruitment. The acceptance rate varied from 19% to 33% between trial centres. Measures to ensure target recruitment included named coordinating centre staff supporting and monitoring each centre, prompt identification and resolution of logistic problems, varying the volume of invitations by centre, using local non-attendance rates to determine the size of recruitment clinics, and organising large ad hoc clinics supported by coordinating centre staff. The trial randomised 202,638 women in 4.3 years. CONCLUSIONS: Planning and trial management are as important as trial design and require equal attention from senior investigators. Successful recruitment needs constant monitoring by a committed proactive management team that is willing to explore individual solutions for different centres and use central resources to improve local recruitment. Automation of trial processes with web based trial management systems is crucial in large multicentre randomised controlled trials. Recruitment can be further enhanced by using information videos and group discussions. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN22488978.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.a2079

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Large population-based cohorts such as UKCTOCS and EPIC contain patient samples that precede diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, but crucial information such as family history and comorbidity data are not consistently available.

    “Although large population-based cohorts that have recruited healthy individuals (such as UKCTOCS72 and EPIC73) contain patient samples that precede diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, crucial information—such as family history and comorbidity data, including the presence of chronic pancreatitis or diabetes—are not consistently available.”

    From Early detection of pancreatic cancer (2020) · cites this paper as [72]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 32 · Cited by 151

Authors
Menon, U., Gentry-Maharaj, A., Ryan, A., Sharma, A., Burnell, M., Hallett, R., Lewis, S., Lopez, A., Godfrey, K., Oram, D., Herod, J., Williamson, K., Seif, M., Scott, I., Mould, T., Woolas, R., Murdoch, J., Dobbs, S., Amso, N., Leeson, S., Cruickshank, D., McGuire, A., Campbell, S., Fallowfield, L., Skates, S., Parmar, M., & Jacobs, I.
Affiliations
  • University College London (GB)
  • Queen Elizabeth Hospital (GB)
  • St Bartholomew's Hospital (GB)
  • Liverpool Women's Hospital (GB)
  • Nottingham City Hospital (GB)
  • St Mary's Hospital (GB)
  • Royal Derby Hospital (GB)
  • The Royal Free Hospital (GB)
  • St. Mary's Hospital (GB)
  • St Michael's Hospital (GB)
  • Belfast City Hospital (GB)
  • Cardiff University (GB)
  • James Cook University Hospital (GB)
  • London School of Economics and Political Science (GB)
  • Brighton and Sussex Medical School (GB)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Medical Research Council (GB)
Corresponding author
Menon, U.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2008-11-13
Volume
337
Issue
nov13 1
Pages
a2079-a2079
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2098734171
Cited by
151
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 6
FWCI
9.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (acceptedVersion)
  • London School of Economics and Political Science Theses Online (London School of Economics and Political Science) (acceptedVersion)
  • London School of Economics and Political Science Research Online (London School of Economics and Political Science) (acceptedVersion)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
  • Sussex Research Online (University of Sussex) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Cancer Research UK
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research
  • University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
  • Medical Research Council
  • National Cancer Institute (CA086381, CA083639, U01CA086381, P50CA083639)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Ovarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
Keywords
trial recruitment, ovarian cancer screening, postmenopausal women, trial management, acceptance rate
MeSH terms
Aged, Female, United Kingdom, Humans, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Ovarian Neoplasms, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Research Design, Multicenter Studies as Topic, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Patient Selection

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review