Efstathia Gkioni1, Roser Rius2, Susanna Dodd3, Carrol Gamble3. 1. Department of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom; INSERM, U1153 Epidemiology and Biostatistics Sorbonne Paris Cité Research Center (CRESS), Methods of Therapeutic Evaluation of Chronic Diseases Team (METHODS), Paris, France; Paris Descartes University, Paris Cité, France. Electronic address: e.gkioni@liverpool.ac.uk. 2. Department of Statistics and Operations Research, School of Mathematics and Statistics, BarcelonaTech (UPC), Barcelona, Spain. 3. Department of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Patient recruitment in clinical trials is challenging with failure to recruit to time and target sample size common. This may be caused by unanticipated problems or by overestimation of the recruitment rate. This study is a systematic review of statistical models to predict recruitment at the design stage of clinical trials. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The Online Resource for Recruitment research in Clinical triAls database was searched to identify articles published between 2008 and 2016. Articles published before 2008 were identified from a relevant systematic review. Google search was used to find potential methods in gray literature. RESULTS: Thirteen eligible articles were identified of which, 11 focused on stochastic approaches, one on deterministic models, and one included both stochastic and deterministic methods. Models varied considerably in the factors included and in their complexity. Key aspects included their ability to condition on time; whether they used average or center-specific recruitment rates; and assumptions around center initiation rates. Lack of flexibility of some models restricts their implementation. CONCLUSION: Deterministic models require specification of few parameters but are likely unrealistic although easy to implement. Increasingly, stochastic models require greater parameter specification, which, along with greater complexity may be a barrier to their implementation.
OBJECTIVE:Patient recruitment in clinical trials is challenging with failure to recruit to time and target sample size common. This may be caused by unanticipated problems or by overestimation of the recruitment rate. This study is a systematic review of statistical models to predict recruitment at the design stage of clinical trials. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The Online Resource for Recruitment research in Clinical triAls database was searched to identify articles published between 2008 and 2016. Articles published before 2008 were identified from a relevant systematic review. Google search was used to find potential methods in gray literature. RESULTS: Thirteen eligible articles were identified of which, 11 focused on stochastic approaches, one on deterministic models, and one included both stochastic and deterministic methods. Models varied considerably in the factors included and in their complexity. Key aspects included their ability to condition on time; whether they used average or center-specific recruitment rates; and assumptions around center initiation rates. Lack of flexibility of some models restricts their implementation. CONCLUSION: Deterministic models require specification of few parameters but are likely unrealistic although easy to implement. Increasingly, stochastic models require greater parameter specification, which, along with greater complexity may be a barrier to their implementation.
Authors: Benjamin Kasenda; Junhao Liu; Yu Jiang; Byron Gajewski; Cen Wu; Erik von Elm; Stefan Schandelmaier; Giusi Moffa; Sven Trelle; Andreas Michael Schmitt; Amanda K Herbrand; Viktoria Gloy; Benjamin Speich; Sally Hopewell; Lars G Hemkens; Constantin Sluka; Kris McGill; Maureen Meade; Deborah Cook; Francois Lamontagne; Jean-Marc Tréluyer; Anna-Bettina Haidich; John P A Ioannidis; Shaun Treweek; Matthias Briel Journal: Trials Date: 2020-08-21 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Jan Henrik Terheyden; Charlotte Behning; Anna Lüning; Ludmila Wintergerst; Pier G Basile; Diana Tavares; Beatriz A Melício; Sergio Leal; George Weissgerber; Ulrich F O Luhmann; David P Crabb; Adnan Tufail; Carel Hoyng; Moritz Berger; Matthias Schmid; Rufino Silva; Cecília V Martinho; José Cunha-Vaz; Frank G Holz; Robert P Finger Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2021-03-17 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Charlotte L Hall; Charlotte Sanderson; Beverly J Brown; Per Andrén; Sophie Bennett; Liam R Chamberlain; E Bethan Davies; Kareem Khan; Natalie Kouzoupi; David Mataix-Cols; Caitlin McKenzie; Tara Murphy; Mark Townsend; Chris Hollis; Elizabeth Murray Journal: Trials Date: 2020-12-09 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Richard M Jacques; Rashida Ahmed; James Harper; Adya Ranjan; Isra Saeed; Rebecca M Simpson; Stephen J Walters Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-02-14 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Rosa M Jimenez-Rodriguez; Guillermo Martín-Gutiérrez; Silvia Jiménez-Jorge; Clara M Rosso-Fernández; Luis Tallón-Aguilar; Cristina Roca-Oporto; Javier Padillo; Alison Luckey; Angela Cano; José López-Ruiz; Silvia Gómez-Zorrilla; Jaime Bonnín-Pascual; Lucía Boix-Palop; José Miguel Montejo; Julian Torre-Cisneros; José Miguel Cisneros Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-02-03 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Anna Kearney; Polly-Anna Ashford; Laura Butlin; Thomas Conway; William J Cragg; Declan Devane; Heidi Gardner; Daisy M Gaunt; Katie Gillies; Nicola L Harman; Andrew Hunter; Athene J Lane; Catherine McWilliams; Louise Murphy; Carrie O'Nions; Edward N Stanhope; Akke Vellinga; Paula R Williamson; Carrol Gamble Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2021-10-24 Impact factor: 2.599