Surgery versus conservative management of stable thoracolumbar fracture: the PRESTO feasibility RCT.
CONSERVATIVE MANAGEMENT
FEASIBILITY
FRACTURE
PILOT
QUALITATIVE
RANDOMISED CONTROLLED TRIAL
SURGICAL FIXATION
SURVEY
THORACOLUMBAR
Journal
Health technology assessment (Winchester, England)
ISSN: 2046-4924
Titre abrégé: Health Technol Assess
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9706284
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 2021
11 2021
Historique:
entrez:
15
11
2021
pubmed:
16
11
2021
medline:
1
12
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
There is informal consensus that simple compression fractures of the body of the thoracolumbar vertebrae between the 10th thoracic vertebra and the second lumbar vertebra without neurological complications can be managed conservatively and that obvious unstable fractures require surgical fixation. However, there is a zone of uncertainty about whether surgical or conservative management is best for stable fractures. To assess the feasibility of a definitive randomised controlled trial comparing surgical fixation with initial conservative management of stable thoracolumbar fractures without spinal cord injury. External randomised feasibility study, qualitative study and national survey. Three NHS hospitals. A feasibility randomised controlled trial using block randomisation, stratified by centre and type of injury (high- or low-energy trauma) to allocate participants 1 : 1 to surgery or conservative treatment; a costing analysis; a national survey of spine surgeons; and a qualitative study with clinicians, recruiting staff and patients. Adults aged ≥ 16 years with a high- or low-energy fracture of the body of a thoracolumbar vertebra between the 10th thoracic vertebra and the second lumbar vertebra, confirmed by radiography, computerised tomography or magnetic resonance imaging, with at least one of the following: kyphotic angle > 20° on weight-bearing radiographs or > 15° on a supine radiograph or on computerised tomography; reduction in vertebral body height of 25%; a fracture line propagating through the posterior wall of the vertebra; involvement of two contiguous vertebrae; or injury to the posterior longitudinal ligament or annulus in addition to the body fracture. Surgical fixation: open spinal surgery (with or without spinal fusion) or minimally invasive stabilisation surgery. Conservative management: mobilisation with or without a brace. Recruitment rate (proportion of eligible participants randomised). Twelve patients were randomised (surgery, Owing to the small number of participants, there is substantial uncertainty around the recruitment rate. A definitive trial is unlikely to be feasible currently, mainly because of the small number of patients meeting the eligibility criteria. The recruitment and follow-up rates were slightly lower than anticipated; however, there is room to increase these based on information gathered and the support within the surgical community for a future trial. Development of consensus regarding the population of interest for a trial. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN12094890. This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Fractures occurring in the mid- to low back region (or thoracolumbar fractures) are the most common back fractures. When the fracture is stable with no spinal nerve injury, there is uncertainty whether treatment with surgery or non-surgical treatment (e.g. stabilising the spine with a brace) results in the best outcome for patients. The Pragmatic Randomised Evaluation of Stable Thoracolumbar fracture treatment Outcomes (PRESTO) study aimed to explore whether or not it would be feasible to carry out a full-scale study to find out which of these two treatments works best. Adults aged ≥ 16 years being treated for these fractures in three hospitals were invited to take part in the study. Over the course of 1 year, we assessed how many patients were treated, the number who met the study entry criteria and the proportion of eligible patients who agreed to take part. Staff and patients were interviewed about the study processes and their experiences of taking part. Spine surgeons from around the UK were also asked to complete an online survey, which asked questions about the treatment of patients with this fracture. There were fewer patients than expected who met the study entry criteria and, of these, fewer patients who agreed to take part. There were differences among surgeons about the definition of a stable fracture, and we found that surgeons have strong views about whether or not surgery is appropriate when fractures are stable. We also found that more support would be required for the staff involved in inviting patients to take part in a bigger study, and that the format and content of information provided to patients needs to be improved. The findings of the PRESTO study showed that a large trial is unlikely to be successful at this time; however, we have provided important information for future research into the treatment of these fractures.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
There is informal consensus that simple compression fractures of the body of the thoracolumbar vertebrae between the 10th thoracic vertebra and the second lumbar vertebra without neurological complications can be managed conservatively and that obvious unstable fractures require surgical fixation. However, there is a zone of uncertainty about whether surgical or conservative management is best for stable fractures.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the feasibility of a definitive randomised controlled trial comparing surgical fixation with initial conservative management of stable thoracolumbar fractures without spinal cord injury.
DESIGN
External randomised feasibility study, qualitative study and national survey.
SETTING
Three NHS hospitals.
METHODS
A feasibility randomised controlled trial using block randomisation, stratified by centre and type of injury (high- or low-energy trauma) to allocate participants 1 : 1 to surgery or conservative treatment; a costing analysis; a national survey of spine surgeons; and a qualitative study with clinicians, recruiting staff and patients.
PARTICIPANTS
Adults aged ≥ 16 years with a high- or low-energy fracture of the body of a thoracolumbar vertebra between the 10th thoracic vertebra and the second lumbar vertebra, confirmed by radiography, computerised tomography or magnetic resonance imaging, with at least one of the following: kyphotic angle > 20° on weight-bearing radiographs or > 15° on a supine radiograph or on computerised tomography; reduction in vertebral body height of 25%; a fracture line propagating through the posterior wall of the vertebra; involvement of two contiguous vertebrae; or injury to the posterior longitudinal ligament or annulus in addition to the body fracture.
INTERVENTIONS
Surgical fixation: open spinal surgery (with or without spinal fusion) or minimally invasive stabilisation surgery. Conservative management: mobilisation with or without a brace.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE
Recruitment rate (proportion of eligible participants randomised).
RESULTS
Twelve patients were randomised (surgery,
LIMITATIONS
Owing to the small number of participants, there is substantial uncertainty around the recruitment rate.
CONCLUSIONS
A definitive trial is unlikely to be feasible currently, mainly because of the small number of patients meeting the eligibility criteria. The recruitment and follow-up rates were slightly lower than anticipated; however, there is room to increase these based on information gathered and the support within the surgical community for a future trial.
FUTURE WORK
Development of consensus regarding the population of interest for a trial.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN12094890.
FUNDING
This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in
Fractures occurring in the mid- to low back region (or thoracolumbar fractures) are the most common back fractures. When the fracture is stable with no spinal nerve injury, there is uncertainty whether treatment with surgery or non-surgical treatment (e.g. stabilising the spine with a brace) results in the best outcome for patients. The Pragmatic Randomised Evaluation of Stable Thoracolumbar fracture treatment Outcomes (PRESTO) study aimed to explore whether or not it would be feasible to carry out a full-scale study to find out which of these two treatments works best. Adults aged ≥ 16 years being treated for these fractures in three hospitals were invited to take part in the study. Over the course of 1 year, we assessed how many patients were treated, the number who met the study entry criteria and the proportion of eligible patients who agreed to take part. Staff and patients were interviewed about the study processes and their experiences of taking part. Spine surgeons from around the UK were also asked to complete an online survey, which asked questions about the treatment of patients with this fracture. There were fewer patients than expected who met the study entry criteria and, of these, fewer patients who agreed to take part. There were differences among surgeons about the definition of a stable fracture, and we found that surgeons have strong views about whether or not surgery is appropriate when fractures are stable. We also found that more support would be required for the staff involved in inviting patients to take part in a bigger study, and that the format and content of information provided to patients needs to be improved. The findings of the PRESTO study showed that a large trial is unlikely to be successful at this time; however, we have provided important information for future research into the treatment of these fractures.
Autres résumés
Type: plain-language-summary
(eng)
Fractures occurring in the mid- to low back region (or thoracolumbar fractures) are the most common back fractures. When the fracture is stable with no spinal nerve injury, there is uncertainty whether treatment with surgery or non-surgical treatment (e.g. stabilising the spine with a brace) results in the best outcome for patients. The Pragmatic Randomised Evaluation of Stable Thoracolumbar fracture treatment Outcomes (PRESTO) study aimed to explore whether or not it would be feasible to carry out a full-scale study to find out which of these two treatments works best. Adults aged ≥ 16 years being treated for these fractures in three hospitals were invited to take part in the study. Over the course of 1 year, we assessed how many patients were treated, the number who met the study entry criteria and the proportion of eligible patients who agreed to take part. Staff and patients were interviewed about the study processes and their experiences of taking part. Spine surgeons from around the UK were also asked to complete an online survey, which asked questions about the treatment of patients with this fracture. There were fewer patients than expected who met the study entry criteria and, of these, fewer patients who agreed to take part. There were differences among surgeons about the definition of a stable fracture, and we found that surgeons have strong views about whether or not surgery is appropriate when fractures are stable. We also found that more support would be required for the staff involved in inviting patients to take part in a bigger study, and that the format and content of information provided to patients needs to be improved. The findings of the PRESTO study showed that a large trial is unlikely to be successful at this time; however, we have provided important information for future research into the treatment of these fractures.
Banques de données
ISRCTN
['ISRCTN12094890']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1-126Subventions
Organisme : Department of Health
Pays : United Kingdom
Références
Heinzelmann M, Wanner GA. Thoracolumbar Spinal Injuries. In Boos N, Aebi M, editors. Spinal Disorders. Berlin: Springer; 2008. pp. 883–924.
Wood KB, Li W, Lebl DR, Lebl DS, Ploumis A. Management of thoracolumbar spine fractures. Spine J 2014;14:145–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2012.10.041
doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2012.10.041
Gopinath B, Harris IA, Nicholas M, Casey P, Blyth F, Maher CG, Cameron ID. A comparison of health outcomes in older versus younger adults following a road traffic crash injury: a cohort study. PLOS ONE 2015;10:e0122732. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0122732
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0122732
Jagnoor J, De Wolf A, Nicholas M, Maher CG, Casey P, Blyth F, et al. Restriction in functioning and quality of life is common in people 2 months after compensable motor vehicle crashes: prospective cohort study. Inj Epidemiol 2015;2:8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40621-015-0042-7
doi: 10.1186/s40621-015-0042-7
Platts-Mills TF, Flannigan SA, Bortsov AV, Smith S, Domeier RM, Swor RA, et al. Persistent pain among older adults discharged home from the emergency department after motor vehicle crash: a prospective cohort study. Ann Emerg Med 2016;67:166–76.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2015.05.003
doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2015.05.003
Denis F. Spinal instability as defined by the three-column spine concept in acute spinal trauma. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1984;189:65–76. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-198410000-00008
doi: 10.1097/00003086-198410000-00008
Kepler CK, Vroome C, Goldfarb M, Nyirjesy S, Millhouse P, Lonjon G, et al. Variation in the management of thoracolumbar trauma and postoperative infection. J Spinal Disord Tech 2015;28:E212–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000000224
doi: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000224
Magerl F, Aebi M, Gertzbein SD, Harms J, Nazarian S. A comprehensive classification of thoracic and lumbar injuries. Eur Spine J 1994;3:184–201. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02221591
doi: 10.1007/BF02221591
Reinhold M, Audigé L, Schnake KJ, Bellabarba C, Dai LY, Oner FC. AO spine injury classification system: a revision proposal for the thoracic and lumbar spine. Eur Spine J 2013;22:2184–201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-013-2738-0
doi: 10.1007/s00586-013-2738-0
Vaccaro AR, Lehman RA, Hurlbert RJ, Anderson PA, Harris M, Hedlund R, et al. A new classification of thoracolumbar injuries: the importance of injury morphology, the integrity of the posterior ligamentous complex, and neurologic status. Spine 2005;30:2325–33. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000182986.43345.cb
doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000182986.43345.cb
Lenarz CJ, Place HM. Evaluation of a new spine classification system, does it accurately predict treatment? J Spinal Disord Tech 2010;23:192–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0b013e31819e30c1
doi: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e31819e30c1
Vaccaro AR, Baron EM, Sanfilippo J, Jacoby S, Steuve J, Grossman E, et al. Reliability of a novel classification system for thoracolumbar injuries: the Thoracolumbar Injury Severity Score. Spine 2006;31(Suppl. 11):62–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000218072.25964.a9
doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000218072.25964.a9
McCormack T, Karaikovic E, Gaines RW. The load sharing classification of spine fractures. Spine 1994;19:1741–4. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199408000-00014
doi: 10.1097/00007632-199408000-00014
Denis F. The three column spine and its significance in the classification of acute thoracolumbar spinal injuries. Spine 1983;8:817–31. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-198311000-00003
doi: 10.1097/00007632-198311000-00003
Holdsworth F. Fractures, dislocations, and fracture-dislocations of the spine. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1970;52:1534–51. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-197052080-00002
doi: 10.2106/00004623-197052080-00002
Ferguson RL, Allen BL. A mechanistic classification of thoracolumbar spine fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1984;189:77–88. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-198410000-00009
doi: 10.1097/00003086-198410000-00009
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Head Injury: Assessment and Early Management. NICE Guideline CG176. 2014. URL: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg176/resources/head-injury-assessment-and-early-management-pdf-35109755595493 (accessed 19 June 2019).
Hahnhaussen J, Hak DJ, Weckbach S, Ertel W, Stahel PF. High-energy proximal femur fractures in geriatric patients: a retrospective analysis of short-term complications and in-hospital mortality in 32 consecutive patients. Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil 2011;2:195–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/2151458511427702
doi: 10.1177/2151458511427702
Diamantopoulos AP, Rohde G, Johnsrud I, Skoie IM, Hochberg M, Haugeberg G. The epidemiology of low- and high-energy distal radius fracture in middle-aged and elderly men and women in Southern Norway. PLOS ONE 2012;7:e43367. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0043367
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0043367
Øyen J, Rohde G, Hochberg M, Johnsen V, Haugeberg G. Low bone mineral density is a significant risk factor for low-energy distal radius fractures in middle-aged and elderly men: a case–control study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2011;12:67. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-12-67
doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-12-67
Siebenga J, Leferink VJ, Segers MJ, Elzinga MJ, Bakker FC, Haarman HJ, et al. Treatment of traumatic thoracolumbar spine fractures: a multicenter prospective randomized study of operative versus nonsurgical treatment. Spine 2006;31:2881–90. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000247804.91869.1e
doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000247804.91869.1e
Wood K, Buttermann G, Mehbod A, Garvey T, Jhanjee R, Sechriest V. Operative compared with nonoperative treatment of a thoracolumbar burst fracture without neurological deficit. A prospective, randomized study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003;85:773–81. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200305000-00001
doi: 10.2106/00004623-200305000-00001
Bailey CS, Urquhart JC, Dvorak MF, Nadeau M, Boyd MC, Thomas KC, et al. Orthosis versus no orthosis for the treatment of thoracolumbar burst fractures without neurologic injury: a multicenter prospective randomized equivalence trial. Spine J 2014;14:2557–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2013.10.017
doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2013.10.017
Pneumaticos SG, Triantafyllopoulos GK, Giannoudis PV. Advances made in the treatment of thoracolumbar fractures: current trends and future directions. Injury 2013;44:703–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2012.12.005
doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2012.12.005
McAnany SJ, Overley SC, Kim JS, Baird EO, Qureshi SA, Anderson PA. Open versus minimally invasive fixation techniques for thoracolumbar trauma: a meta-analysis. Global Spine J 2016;6:186–94. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0035-1554777
doi: 10.1055/s-0035-1554777
Jaffray DC, Eisenstein SM, Balain B, Trivedi JM, Newton Ede M. Early mobilisation of thoracolumbar burst fractures without neurology: a natural history observation. Bone Joint J 2016;98:97–101. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.98B1.36121
doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.98B1.36121
Kumar A, Aujla R, Lee C. The management of thoracolumbar burst fractures: a prospective study between conservative management, traditional open spinal surgery and minimally interventional spinal surgery. Springerplus 2015;4:204. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-015-0960-4
doi: 10.1186/s40064-015-0960-4
Rudol G, Gummerson NW. (ii) Thoracolumbar spinal fractures: review of anatomy, biomechanics, classification and treatment. Orthop Trauma 2014;28:70–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mporth.2014.01.003
doi: 10.1016/j.mporth.2014.01.003
Abudou M, Chen X, Kong X, Wu T. Surgical versus non-surgical treatment for thoracolumbar burst fractures without neurological deficit. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;6:CD005079. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005079.pub3
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005079.pub3
Ghobrial GM, Maulucci CM, Maltenfort M, Dalyai RT, Vaccaro AR, Fehlings MG, et al. Operative and nonoperative adverse events in the management of traumatic fractures of the thoracolumbar spine: a systematic review. Neurosurg Focus 2014;37:E8. https://doi.org/10.3171/2014.4.FOCUS1467
doi: 10.3171/2014.4.FOCUS1467
Rometsch ESM, Härtl R, McGuire RA, Gallo-Kopf BS, Kalampoki V, Kandziora F. AO spine injury classification system: a revision proposal for the thoracic and lumbar spine. Eur Spine J 2017;7:350–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/2192568217699202
doi: 10.1177/2192568217699202
Clement RC, Welander A, Stowell C, Cha TD, Chen JL, Davies M, et al. A proposed set of metrics for standardized outcome reporting in the management of low back pain. Acta Orthop 2015;86:523–33. https://doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2015.1036696
doi: 10.3109/17453674.2015.1036696
Davidson M, Keating JL. A comparison of five low back disability questionnaires: reliability and responsiveness. Phys Ther 2002;82:8–24. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/82.1.8
doi: 10.1093/ptj/82.1.8
Deyo RA, Battie M, Beurskens AJ, Bombardier C, Croft P, Koes B, et al. Outcome measures for low back pain research. A proposal for standardized use. Spine 1998;23:2003–13. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199809150-00018
doi: 10.1097/00007632-199809150-00018
Fairbank JCT, Pynsent PB. The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine 2000;25:2940–53. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200011150-00017
doi: 10.1097/00007632-200011150-00017
Hawker GA, Mian S, Kendzerska T, French M. Measures of adult pain. Arthritis Care Res 2011;63:S240–S52. https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.20543
doi: 10.1002/acr.20543
McCormack HM, Horne DJ, Sheather S. Clinical applications of visual analogue scales: a critical review. Psychol Med 1988;18:1007–19. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0033291700009934
doi: 10.1017/s0033291700009934
Ware J, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-item short-form health survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care 1996;34:220–33. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199603000-00003
doi: 10.1097/00005650-199603000-00003
EuroQol. EQ-5D. 2017. URL: www.euroqol.org (accessed 24 September 2019).
Dritsaki M, Achana F, Mason J, Petrou S. Methodological issues surrounding the use of baseline health-related quality of life data to inform trial-based economic evaluations of interventions within emergency and critical care settings: a systematic literature review. PharmacoEconomics 2017;35:501–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-016-0485-x
doi: 10.1007/s40273-016-0485-x
Granja C, Teixeira-Pinto A, Costa-Pereira A. Quality of life after intensive care – evaluation with EQ-5D questionnaire. Intensive Care Med 2002;28:898–907. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-002-1345-z
doi: 10.1007/s00134-002-1345-z
Julious SA. Sample size of 12 per group rule of thumb for a pilot study. Pharm Stat 2005;4:287–91. https://doi.org/10.1002/pst.185
doi: 10.1002/pst.185
Great Britain. Mental Capacity Act 2005. London: The Stationery Office; 2005.
Department of Health and Social Care. NHS Reference Costs 2016. URL: www.gov.uk/government/collections/nhs-reference-costs (accessed 24 September 2019).
Curtis L, Burns A. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2017. Canterbury: Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent; 2017. URL: www.pssru.ac.uk/project-pages/unit-costs/ (accessed 24 September 2019).
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. British National Formulary 2017. URL: https://bnf.nice.org.uk/ (accessed 24 September 2019).
van Hout B, Janssen MF, Feng YS, Kohlmann T, Busschbach J, Golicki D, et al. Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value Health 2012;15:708–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.02.008
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.02.008
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Position Statement on Use of the EQ-5D-5L Valuation Set. 2017. URL: www.nice.org.uk/Media/Default/About/what-we-do/NICE-guidance/NICE-technology-appraisal-guidance/eq5d5l_nice_position_statement.pdf (accessed 24 September 2019).
DAMOCLES Study Group, NHS Health Technology Assessment Programme. A proposed charter for clinical trial data monitoring committees: helping them to do their job well. Lancet 2005;365:711–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(05)17965-3
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)17965-3
Braun V, Clarke V, Hayfield N, Terry G. Thematic Analysis. In Liamputtong P, editor. Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences. Singapore: Springer; 2019. pp. 843–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5251-4_103
doi: 10.1007/978-981-10-5251-4_103
Eysenbach G. Improving the quality of web surveys: the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES). J Med Internet Res 2004;6:e34. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.6.3.e34
doi: 10.2196/jmir.6.3.e34
Cho YI, Johnson TP, Vangeest JB. Enhancing surveys of health care professionals: a meta-analysis of techniques to improve response. Eval Health Prof 2013;36:382–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163278713496425
doi: 10.1177/0163278713496425
Braithwaite D, Emery J, De Lusignan S, Sutton S. Using the Internet to conduct surveys of health professionals: a valid alternative? Fam Pract 2003;20:545–51. https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmg509
doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmg509
D’Souza RS, Johnson RL, Bettini L, Schulte PJ, Burkle C. Room for improvement: a systematic review and meta-analysis on the informed consent process for emergency surgery. Mayo Clin Proc 2019;94:1786–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2019.02.026
doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2019.02.026
Meeting abstracts from the 5th International Clinical Trials Methodology Conference (ICTMC 2019). Trials 2019;20(Suppl. 1):P-179.
Rooshenas L, Paramasivan S, Jepson M, Donovan JL. Intensive triangulation of qualitative research and quantitative data to improve recruitment to randomized trials: the QuinteT approach. Qual Health Res 2019;29:672–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732319828693
doi: 10.1177/1049732319828693