Factors that limit the quality, number and progress of randomised controlled trials.

Abstract

Health Technology Assessment is indexed in Index Medicus/MEDLINE and Excerpta Medica/ EMBASE. Copies of the Executive Summaries are available from the NCCHTA web site (see overleaf).

Laparoscopic sigmoid resection for diverticular disease has no advantages over open approach: midterm results of a randomized controlled trial

“…The main reason for failing to recruit patients was the fact The most obvious is the cosmetic advantage of LSR. More importantly, it seems to be the fact that laparoscopy is emphasized in scientific and public press, which might result in a preference of LSR-by patients and admitting general practitioners [24][25][26][27]. Furthermore, surgeons performing laparoscopic sigmoidectomy may be certain of its possible advantages and therefore be reluctant to argue for a randomized allocation of surgical access.…”

Evidence‐Based Surgery: Barriers, Solutions, and the Role of Evidence Synthesis

“…Continuing medical education, journal clubs, grand rounds, and clinical teaching can be made part of the working week to provide an opportunity for surgeons to assess new trials and encourage an evidence-based practice. Organizational support and funding is vital for all of these activities to occur and can be obtained if there is understanding that RCTs/meta-analyses can yield efficient, cost-effective work [32]. Also, within the current setting of financial constraints that have led to a paucity of health research dollars, new paradigms for revenue generation and funding of clinical research are required.…”

Using short information leaflets as recruitment tools did not improve recruitment: a randomized controlled trial

“…The findings from this study concur with this, as providing different information seems to have had little influence on the patient's decision to participate. The decision to enter into a study is a complex one [18] and is influenced by many external factors, such as the patient's attitudes toward research, the influence of patients' families, and beliefs about how they might benefit or be disadvantaged by taking part. Therefore, it is difficult to find a ''one-size-fits-all'' patient inviteelevel strategy that would improve recruitment across the board.…”