Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Trials 1/2022

Open Access 01-12-2022 | Study protocol

How do trial teams plan for retention during the design stage of the trial? A scoping review protocol

Authors: Ellen Murphy, Katie Gillies, Frances Shiely

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2022

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Retention remains a major challenge for many clinical trials. The SPIRIT guidelines state the following information on retention should be included in the trial protocol “Plans to promote participant retention and complete follow-up, including list of any outcome data to be collected for participants who discontinue or deviate from intervention protocols”. This guidance shows the importance of planning retention methods and handling missing data as this can impact how the results of the trial are interpreted. The most recent Cochrane review of strategies to improve retention in clinical trials highlighted that some trials implemented multiple retention strategies and we questioned whether the use of multiple strategies was planned at the design stage and included in the protocol or are strategies implemented when retention becomes an issue within the trial. The purpose of our scoping review is to establish if and how trial teams prepare for retention at the design phase of clinical trials.

Methods and analysis

We will follow the methodological framework and guidelines for scoping reviews outlined by the Joanna Briggs Institute. We will search MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, CINAHL (EBSCO), and Web of Science. A comprehensive search strategy for PubMed was developed in collaboration with an experienced research librarian. We will include protocols for phase 2, 3, and 4 RCTs as well as pilot and feasibility studies. The screening process will involve two reviewers. EM will independently screen all titles and abstracts. FS will screen 10% of the overall search output, and where necessary full protocol texts will be screened to determine eligibility. We will randomly sample eligible protocols to ensure the protocols represent a variety of trial and intervention types. Data will be extracted from each protocol and the results will be synthesised. The analysis will be qualitative using a narrative summary and descriptive statistics where appropriate.

Discussion

The scoping review will help trial methodologists better understand if retention strategies are planned for during the design stage of the trial contributing to the PRioRiTy II unanswered question “How should people who run trials plan for retention during their funding application and creation of the trial (protocol development)?”.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Tetzlaff JM, Moher D, Chan A-W. Developing a guideline for clinical trial protocol content: Delphi consensus survey. Trials. 2012;13(1):1–10.CrossRef Tetzlaff JM, Moher D, Chan A-W. Developing a guideline for clinical trial protocol content: Delphi consensus survey. Trials. 2012;13(1):1–10.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Babu C, Mell L, Lee N, Zakeri K. Public access to protocols of contemporary cancer randomized clinical trials. Trials. 2021;22(1):1–4.CrossRef Babu C, Mell L, Lee N, Zakeri K. Public access to protocols of contemporary cancer randomized clinical trials. Trials. 2021;22(1):1–4.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Chan A-W, Tetzlaff JM, Altman DG, Laupacis A, Gøtzsche PC, Krleža-Jerić K, et al. SPIRIT 2013 statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158(3):200–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Chan A-W, Tetzlaff JM, Altman DG, Laupacis A, Gøtzsche PC, Krleža-Jerić K, et al. SPIRIT 2013 statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158(3):200–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
4.
go back to reference Tetzlaff JM, Chan A-W, Kitchen J, Sampson M, Tricco AC, Moher D. Guidelines for randomized clinical trial protocol content: a systematic review. Syst Rev. 2012;1(1):1–11.CrossRef Tetzlaff JM, Chan A-W, Kitchen J, Sampson M, Tricco AC, Moher D. Guidelines for randomized clinical trial protocol content: a systematic review. Syst Rev. 2012;1(1):1–11.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Chan A-W, Hróbjartsson A, Haahr MT, Gøtzsche PC, Altman DG. Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA. 2004;291(20):2457–65.CrossRefPubMed Chan A-W, Hróbjartsson A, Haahr MT, Gøtzsche PC, Altman DG. Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA. 2004;291(20):2457–65.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Gillies K, Kearney A, Keenan C, Treweek S, Hudson J, Brueton VC, et al. Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021;3(3):MR000032.PubMed Gillies K, Kearney A, Keenan C, Treweek S, Hudson J, Brueton VC, et al. Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021;3(3):MR000032.PubMed
7.
go back to reference Walters SJ, Bonacho Dos AnjosHenriqus-Cadby I, Bortolami O, Flight L, Hind D, Jacques RM, et al. Recruitment and retention of participants in randomised controlled trials: a review of trials funded and published by the United Kingdom Health Technology Assessment Programme. BMJ open. 2017;7(3):e015276-e.CrossRef Walters SJ, Bonacho Dos AnjosHenriqus-Cadby I, Bortolami O, Flight L, Hind D, Jacques RM, et al. Recruitment and retention of participants in randomised controlled trials: a review of trials funded and published by the United Kingdom Health Technology Assessment Programme. BMJ open. 2017;7(3):e015276-e.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Chan A-W, Tetzlaff JM, Gøtzsche PC, Altman DG, Mann H, Berlin JA, SPIRIT, et al. explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials. BMJ. 2013;2013:346. Chan A-W, Tetzlaff JM, Gøtzsche PC, Altman DG, Mann H, Berlin JA, SPIRIT, et al. explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials. BMJ. 2013;2013:346.
9.
go back to reference Daykin A, Clement C, Gamble C, Kearney A, Blazeby J, Clarke M, et al. ‘Recruitment, recruitment, recruitment’ – the need for more focus on retention: a qualitative study of five trials. Trials. 2018;19(1):76.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Daykin A, Clement C, Gamble C, Kearney A, Blazeby J, Clarke M, et al. ‘Recruitment, recruitment, recruitment’ – the need for more focus on retention: a qualitative study of five trials. Trials. 2018;19(1):76.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
go back to reference Brunsdon D, Biesty L, Brocklehurst P, Brueton V, Devane D, Elliott J, et al. What are the most important unanswered research questions in trial retention? A James Lind alliance priority setting partnership: the PRioRiTy II (Prioritising Retention in Randomised Trials) study. Trials. 2019;20(1):1–12.CrossRef Brunsdon D, Biesty L, Brocklehurst P, Brueton V, Devane D, Elliott J, et al. What are the most important unanswered research questions in trial retention? A James Lind alliance priority setting partnership: the PRioRiTy II (Prioritising Retention in Randomised Trials) study. Trials. 2019;20(1):1–12.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Peters MDJ, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Munn Z, Tricco AC, Khalil H. Chapter 11: scoping reviews (2020 version). JBI manual for evidence synthesis, JBI. 2020;2020. Peters MDJ, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Munn Z, Tricco AC, Khalil H. Chapter 11: scoping reviews (2020 version). JBI manual for evidence synthesis, JBI. 2020;2020.
12.
go back to reference Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32.CrossRef Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5(1):1–9.CrossRef Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5(1):1–9.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Khalil H, Peters M, Godfrey CM, McInerney P, Soares CB, Parker D. An evidence-based approach to scoping reviews. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing. 2016;13(2):118–23.CrossRefPubMed Khalil H, Peters M, Godfrey CM, McInerney P, Soares CB, Parker D. An evidence-based approach to scoping reviews. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing. 2016;13(2):118–23.CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73.CrossRefPubMed Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Systematic reviews. 2021;10(1):1-11. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Systematic reviews. 2021;10(1):1-11.
17.
go back to reference Popay J, Roberts H, Sowden A, Petticrew M, Arai L, Rodgers M, et al. Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews. A product from the ESRC methods programme Version. 2006;1:b92. Popay J, Roberts H, Sowden A, Petticrew M, Arai L, Rodgers M, et al. Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews. A product from the ESRC methods programme Version. 2006;1:b92.
18.
go back to reference Kearney A, Daykin A, Shaw ARG, Lane AJ, Blazeby JM, Clarke M, et al. Identifying research priorities for effective retention strategies in clinical trials. Trials. 2017;18(1):406.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Kearney A, Daykin A, Shaw ARG, Lane AJ, Blazeby JM, Clarke M, et al. Identifying research priorities for effective retention strategies in clinical trials. Trials. 2017;18(1):406.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
Metadata
Title
How do trial teams plan for retention during the design stage of the trial? A scoping review protocol
Authors
Ellen Murphy
Katie Gillies
Frances Shiely
Publication date
01-12-2022
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2022
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-022-06866-w

Other articles of this Issue 1/2022

Trials 1/2022 Go to the issue