↓ Skip to main content

Automated recruitment and randomisation for an efficient randomised controlled trial in primary care

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
121 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Automated recruitment and randomisation for an efficient randomised controlled trial in primary care
Published in
Trials, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13063-018-2723-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Victoria R. Cornelius, Lisa McDermott, Alice S. Forster, Mark Ashworth, Alison J. Wright, Martin C. Gulliford

Abstract

Use of electronic health records and information technology to deliver more efficient clinical trials is attracting the attention of research funders and researchers. We report on methodological issues and data quality for a comparison of 'automated' and manual (or 'in-practice') methods for recruitment and randomisation in a large randomised controlled trial, with individual patient allocation in primary care. We conducted a three-arm randomised controlled trial in primary care to evaluate interventions to improve the uptake of invited NHS health checks for cardiovascular risk assessment. Eligible participants were identified using a borough-wide health check management information system. An in-practice recruitment and randomisation method used at 12 general practices required the research team to complete monthly visits to each general practice. For the fully automated method, employed for six general practices, randomisation of eligible participants was performed automatically and remotely using a bespoke algorithm embedded in the health check management information system. There were 8588 and 4093 participants recruited for the manual and automated methods, respectively. The in-practice method was ready for implementation 3 months sooner than the automated method and the in-practice method allowed for full control and documentation of the randomisation procedure. However the in-practice approach was labour intensive and the requirement for participant records to be stored locally resulted in the loss of data for 10 practice months. No records for participants allocated using the automated method were lost. A fixed-effects meta-analysis showed that effect estimates for the primary outcome were consistent for the two allocation methods. This trial demonstrated the feasibility of automated recruitment and randomisation methods into a randomised controlled trial performed in primary care. Future research should explore the application of these techniques in other clinical contexts and health care settings. Current Controlled Trials, ID: ISRCTN42856343 . Registered on 21 March 2013.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 121 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 121 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 17 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 11%
Student > Master 13 11%
Researcher 7 6%
Other 6 5%
Other 22 18%
Unknown 43 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 13%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Computer Science 3 2%
Materials Science 3 2%
Other 18 15%
Unknown 50 41%