Skip to main content

Table 2 Top 10 most frequent additional comments about how eligibility criteria are developed or useda

From: Clinical trial recruiters’ experiences working with trial eligibility criteria: results of an exploratory, cross-sectional, online survey in the UK

Rank Comment type n Proportion of all meaningful comments (n = 229)b
1 Support for earlier review of protocol/eligibility criteria 66 29%
2 Want clarity/consistency of information 20 9%
3 Already feedback to sponsor when criteria problematic 14 6%
4 Criteria are often too restrictive 12 5%
5 Criteria should be more inclusive of “real-world” patients 11 5%
6 Support for sponsor-provided eligibility checklists 9 4%
7 Happy to ask sponsor if have queries about criteria 8 3%
=8 Justification for criteria would be useful 7 3%
=8 Criteria can be long and complex 7 3%
=10 Criteria need to be more specific 6 3%
=10 Research Nurse involvement is/could be key in ensuring criteria quality 6 3%
=10 The right people/enough people already tend to be involved in protocol development 6 3%
  1. aFull question: “Do you have any other comments about how eligibility criteria are developed or used?”
  2. bTotal responses: 282; excluded 51 for containing only “no comment” or similar; excluded 2 for comments on issues unrelated to eligibility criteria in trials