The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Increasing recruitment to randomised trials: a review of randomised controlled trials
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Poor recruitment to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is a widespread and important problem. With poor recruitment being such an important issue with respect to the conduct of randomised trials, a systematic review of controlled trials on recruitment methods was undertaken in order to identify strategies that are effective. METHODS: We searched the register of trials in Cochrane library from 1996 to end of 2004. We also searched Web of Science for 2004. Additional trials were identified from personal knowledge. Included studies had to use random allocation and participants had to be allocated to different methods of recruitment to a 'real' randomised trial. Trials that randomised participants to 'mock' trials and trials of recruitment to non-randomised studies (e.g., case control studies) were excluded. Information on the study design, intervention and control, and number of patients recruited was extracted by the 2 authors. RESULTS: We identified 14 papers describing 20 different interventions. Effective interventions included: telephone reminders; questionnaire inclusion; monetary incentives; using an 'open' rather than placebo design; and making trial materials culturally sensitive. CONCLUSION: Few trials have been undertaken to test interventions to improve trial recruitment. There is an urgent need for more RCTs of recruitment strategies.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Donovan, J., Little, P., Mills, N., Smith, M., Brindle, L., Jacoby, A., Peters, T., Frankel, S., Neal, D., & Hamdy, F. (2002) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.325.7367.766 · Cited by 533
Factors that limit the quality, number and progress of randomised controlled trials
Prescott, Counsell, Gillespie, Grant, Russell, Kiauka, Colthart, Ross, Shepherd, & Russell (1999) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta3200 · Cited by 390
Cited by
Treweek, S., Lockhart, P., Pitkethly, M., Cook, J. A., Kjeldstrøm, M., Johansen, M., Taskila, T. K., Sullivan, F. M., Wilson, S., Jackson, C., et al. (2013) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002360 · Cited by 623
Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised trials
Treweek, S., Pitkethly, M., Cook, J., Fraser, C., Mitchell, E., Sullivan, F., Jackson, C., Taskila, T. K., & Gardner, H. (2018) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.mr000013.pub6 · Cited by 521
Clinical trials: The challenge of recruitment and retention of participants
Gul, R. B., & Ali, P. A. (2010) · Journal of Clinical Nursing · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2702.2009.03041.x · Cited by 449
Sully, B. G. O., Julious, S. A., & Nicholl, J. (2013) · Trials · doi:10.1186/1745-6215-14-166 · Cited by 410
Bower, P., Brueton, V., Gamble, C., Treweek, S., Smith, C. T., Young, B., & Williamson, P. (2014) · Trials · doi:10.1186/1745-6215-15-399 · Cited by 369
Metadata
- Authors
- Watson, J. M., & Torgerson, D. J.
- Venue
- BMC Medical Research Methodology
- Published
- 2006-07-19
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 34-34
- ISSN
- 1471-2288 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2122306415
- Cited by
- 332
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 9.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Increasing recruitment to randomised trials: a review of randomised controlled trials. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1471-2288-6-34
- The paper
- Watson, J. M., & Torgerson, D. J. (2006). Increasing recruitment to randomised trials: a review of randomised controlled trials. BMC Medical Research Methodology. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-6-34
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.