Cited by 147Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsEthics in Clinical Research

Exclusion rates in randomized controlled trials of treatments for physical conditions: a systematic review

Open access
He, Jinzhang, Morales, Daniel R., Guthrie, Bruce·2020·Trials

Abstract

Background: The generalisability of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) can be uncertain because the impact of exclusion criteria is rarely quantified. The aim of this study was to systematically review studies examining the percentage of clinical populations with a physical health condition who would be excluded by RCTs of treatments for that condition. Methods: Medline and Embase were searched from inception to Feb 11th 2018. Two reviewers independently completed screening, full-text review, data extraction and risk-of-bias assessment. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients in the clinical population who would have been excluded from each examined trial. Subgroup analyses examined exclusion by population setting, publication date and funding source. Results: Titles/abstracts (20,754) were screened, and 50 studies were included which reported exclusion rates from 305 trials of treatments in 31 physical conditions. Estimated rates of exclusion from trials varied from 0% to 100%, and the median exclusion rate was 77.1% of patients (interquartile range 55.5% to 89.0% exclusion). Median exclusion rates for trials in common chronic conditions were high, including hypertension 83.0%, type 2 diabetes 81.7%, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 84.3%, and asthma 96.0%. The most commonly applied exclusion criteria related to age, co-morbidity and co-prescribing, whereas more implicit criteria relating to life expectancy or functional status were not typically examined. There was no evidence that exclusion varied by the nature of the clinical population in which exclusion was evaluated or trial funding source. There was no statistically significant change in exclusion rates in more recent compared with older trials. Conclusions: The majority of trials of treatments for physical conditions examined excluded the majority of patients with the condition being treated. Almost a quarter of the trials studied excluded over 90% of patients, more than half of trials excluded at least three quarters of patients, and four out of five trials excluded at least half of patients. A limitation is that most studies applied only a subset of eligibility criteria, so exclusion rates are likely under-estimated. Exclusion from trials of older people and people with co-morbidity and co-prescribing is increasingly untenable given population aging and increasing multimorbidity. Trial registration: PROSPERO registration CRD42016042282 .

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 · 10.1186/s13063-020-4139-0

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [28]Guthrie B, Thompson A, Dumbreck S, Flynn A, Alderson P, Nairn M, et al. Better guidelines for better care: accounting for multimorbidity in clinical guidelines (NIHR HS&DR 11/2003/27). Health Serv Deliv Res. 2017;5:16. 28459515

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
He, J., Morales, D. R., & Guthrie, B.
Affiliations
  • University of Dundee (GB)
  • University of Edinburgh (GB)
Corresponding author
Guthrie, Bruce
Venue
Trials
Published
2020-02-26
Volume
21
Issue
1
Pages
228-228
ISSN
1745-6215 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3009768886
Cited by
147
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 4
FWCI
2.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Trials (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Discovery Research Portal (University of Dundee) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Medical Research Scotland (Vac-965-2016)
  • Health Services and Delivery Research Programme (NIHR HS&DR 11/2003/27)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
Keywords
exclusion rates, exclusion criteria, eligibility criteria, generalizability of trial results, physical health conditions, multimorbidity, older adults, co-prescribing, chronic disease, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, trial funding, population aging
MeSH terms
Humans, Morbidity, Bias, 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