Key result
Sites supported by the new NIHR research infrastructure recruited almost double the number of patients compared to unsupported sites in the UKUFF study.
Why the study?
Does support from the NIHR Comprehensive Local Research Networks improve patient recruitment rates in the UKUFF orthopaedic trial?
Observational
Yes
Does support from the NIHR Comprehensive Local Research Networks improve patient recruitment rates in the UKUFF orthopaedic trial?
Utilizing dedicated research infrastructure networks can significantly improve patient recruitment rates in multicenter surgical trials.
Investment in research networks may aid enrollment; leaves open generalizability to other trials.
Research opportunities in the NHS have changed greatly over the last year or so. The UKUFF study demonstrates the advantages of these changes to orthopaedic research. Analysing the recruitment rates of each surgeon involved in the study found inconsistencies in recruitment patterns. As a result projected recruitment targets were suffering. The UKUFF team took advantage of the new research initiative and at the end of 2008 obtained the support offered by the new infrastructure at many participating sites. The recruitment total at the end of June 2009 showed that supported sites recruited almost double the number of patients compared to the unsupported sites. Surgeons involved in research need to access available resources to help them improve their participation in research. Being actively involved in specialist research like UKUFF can lead to further support for new studies instigated by shoulder surgeons.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Carr et al. (2009) conducted an observational in orthopaedic research. NIHR Comprehensive Local Research Networks support vs. unsupported sites was evaluated on patient recruitment rates. Sites supported by the new NIHR research infrastructure recruited almost double the number of patients compared to unsupported sites in the UKUFF study.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: