Meng H Tan1, Matthew Thomas2, Mark P MacEachern3. 1. Division of Metabolism, Endocrinology and Diabetes, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. Electronic address: mengt@med.umich.edu. 2. College of Human Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA. 3. Taubman Health Sciences Library, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Abstract
AIM: We studied the use of patient/disease registries to recruit potential subjects for prospective clinical trials - describing the number, types and major benefits of using this approach. METHODS: In December 2013, we conducted a focused database search in PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science for studies (English language only) that used registries to recruit subjects for clinical trials published in 2004-2013. Of the 233 unique citations identified, 21 used registries to recruit subjects - 10 papers and 11 abstracts. Pearling and search for subsequent full papers of the abstracts identified 4 more papers. RESULTS: Our analysis, based on these 25 citations, showed that 14 are related to cancer, 3 to diabetes mellitus, 1 each to stroke, asthma, and celiac disease and 5 are disease neutral. Many types of registries (population-based cancer, quality improvement, disease-specific, web-based disease-neutral registries, local general practice registers, and national health database) are used to recruit subjects for clinical trials and uncover new knowledge. Overall, 16 registries are in the US, 4 in UK, 1 each in Canada, Spain, and Australia and 1 involved in many countries. Registries can identify very large number of subjects for screening for eligibility for clinical trials, especially in very large trials, rare disease trials, and trials involving minority patients. CONCLUSIONS: Registries can retrospectively identify very large numbers of potential subjects for screening for eligibility and enrollment in prospective clinical trials. This matching can lead to more timely recruitment and help solve a major problem in conducting clinical trials.
AIM: We studied the use of patient/disease registries to recruit potential subjects for prospective clinical trials - describing the number, types and major benefits of using this approach. METHODS: In December 2013, we conducted a focused database search in PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science for studies (English language only) that used registries to recruit subjects for clinical trials published in 2004-2013. Of the 233 unique citations identified, 21 used registries to recruit subjects - 10 papers and 11 abstracts. Pearling and search for subsequent full papers of the abstracts identified 4 more papers. RESULTS: Our analysis, based on these 25 citations, showed that 14 are related to cancer, 3 to diabetes mellitus, 1 each to stroke, asthma, and celiac disease and 5 are disease neutral. Many types of registries (population-based cancer, quality improvement, disease-specific, web-based disease-neutral registries, local general practice registers, and national health database) are used to recruit subjects for clinical trials and uncover new knowledge. Overall, 16 registries are in the US, 4 in UK, 1 each in Canada, Spain, and Australia and 1 involved in many countries. Registries can identify very large number of subjects for screening for eligibility for clinical trials, especially in very large trials, rare disease trials, and trials involving minority patients. CONCLUSIONS: Registries can retrospectively identify very large numbers of potential subjects for screening for eligibility and enrollment in prospective clinical trials. This matching can lead to more timely recruitment and help solve a major problem in conducting clinical trials.
Authors: Melinda L Irwin; Lisa Cadmus; Marty Alvarez-Reeves; Mary O'Neil; Eileen Mierzejewski; Rebecca Latka; Herbert Yu; Loretta Dipietro; Beth Jones; M Tish Knobf; Gina G Chung; Susan T Mayne Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-06-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Denise Clutter Snyder; Richard Sloane; David Lobach; Isaac M Lipkus; Bercedis Peterson; William Kraus; Wendy Demark-Wahnefried Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Mary E Cooley; Linda Sarna; Jean K Brown; Roma D Williams; Cynthia Chernecky; Geraldine Padilla; Leda Layo Danao Journal: Cancer Nurs Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 2.592
Authors: Alison M McDonald; Rosemary C Knight; Marion K Campbell; Vikki A Entwistle; Adrian M Grant; Jonathan A Cook; Diana R Elbourne; David Francis; Jo Garcia; Ian Roberts; Claire Snowdon Journal: Trials Date: 2006-04-07 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Meng H Tan; Steven J Bernstein; Stephen Gendler; David Hanauer; William H Herman Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2016-01-26 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Brett R Anderson; Evelyn G Gotlieb; Kevin Hill; Kimberly E McHugh; Mark A Scheurer; Carlos M Mery; Glenn J Pelletier; Jonathan R Kaltman; Owen J White; Felicia L Trachtenberg; Danielle Hollenbeck-Pringle; Brian W McCrindle; Donna M Sylvester; Aaron W Eckhauser; Sara K Pasquali; Jeffery B Anderson; Marcus S Schamberger; Subhadra Shashidharan; Jeffrey P Jacobs; Marshall L Jacobs; Marko Boskovski; Jane W Newburger; Meena Nathan Journal: Cardiol Young Date: 2020-05-08 Impact factor: 1.093
Authors: Richard M Martin; Jenny L Donovan; Verity A Leach; John D McGeagh; Ruta Margelyte; Niamh M Redmond; Axel Walther; Sabi Redwood Journal: Pilot Feasibility Stud Date: 2017-06-21
Authors: Elizabeth Flood-Grady; Virginia C Clark; Angie Bauer; Lauren Morelli; Patrick Horne; Janice L Krieger; David R Nelson Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Commun Date: 2017-08-24
Authors: Elizabeth Flood-Grady; Jiawei Liu; Samantha R Paige; Donghee Lee; David R Nelson; Elizabeth Shenkman; Deaven Hough; Janice L Krieger Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Commun Date: 2019-12-24