Which variables are associated with recruitment failure? A nationwide review on obstetrical and gynaecological multicentre RCTs (2003–2023)

Abstract

Objective

We aim to assess which variables are associated with recruitment failure of obstetrical and gynaecological randomised controlled trials (RCTs), leading to an extension of the study period.

Design

Nationwide study.

Setting

A cohort of RCTs supported by the trial centre of the Dutch Consortium of Obstetrics and Gynaecology.

Population

We included 83 RCTs that recruited patients between 1 March 2003 and 1 December 2023.

Main outcome measures

Main outcome was recruitment target not achieved within 6 months after the preplanned recruitment period. Secondary outcomes were recruitment target not achieved within an extension period of at least 12 months and premature termination of the trial. In all RCTs, we collected information on variables with a potential effect on recruitment failure, recorded at five levels; patient, doctor, participating centre, study organisation and study design.

Results

In total, 46 of 83 RCTs (55%) did not achieve their targeted recruitment within the preplanned study period with a maximal extension period of 6 months. The most relevant variables for recruitment failure in multivariable risk prediction modelling were presence of a no-treatment arm (where treatment is standard clinical practice), a compensation fee of less than €200 per included patient, funding of less than €350 000, while a preceding pilot study lowered this risk.

Conclusions

We identified that the presence of a no-treatment arm, low funding and a low compensation fee per included patient were the most relevant risk factors for recruitment failure within the preplanned period, while a preceding pilot study lowered this risk. Awareness of these variables is important when designing future studies.

Correspondence to Dr Judith Rikken; [email protected] ; Dr Madelon van Wely; [email protected]

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY

• Recruitment failure was assessed in a nationwide collection of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) performed within a standardised setting with support and monitoring by the same clinical trial centre.

• This study was able to assess all infrastructural variables with a potential association with poor recruitment as described in literature.

• The study is limited by the number of trials.

• The standardised setting may limit the generalisability as many RCTs are conducted in settings without such an infrastructure.

• A limitation of the study was that it did not include patients’ or practitioners’ perspectives, which may affect recruitment.

Introduction

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are widely regarded as the gold standard for assessing the effectiveness of medical interventions and hold a leading position in the hierarchy of medical evidence.¹ RCT outcomes are most often adopted into (inter) national clinical guidelines and have great influence on daily routine clinical practice. Unfortunately, obtaining evidence from RCTs is often hampered by failure to recruit enough patients within the preplanned study period, leading to premature termination of the trial or extension of the study period.²

Overall, a longer recruitment period may result in a shortage of resources possibly impacting the quality of the trial, limit the institutional capacity to start new RCTs, can postpone the availability of beneficial interventions, permit harmful or ineffective interventions to remain in use for longer than ethically warranted, thus hindering a conclusion with sufficient statistical power.³

Premature termination due to poor recruitment has been estimated to occur in 9%–10% of all RCTs.^4–6 Variables that have been associated with poor recruitment leading to premature termination are an overestimation of the number of eligible patients, a preference for one of the interventions by the patients, a high burden of the tested intervention for the patients, an unclear trial design, strict eligibility criteria, a lack of logistic support or a lack of funding.^7–10

While the variables that may result in poor recruitment leading to premature termination of the trial are known, much less is known on variables related to recruitment failure within the preplanned study period, leading to extension of the study period.

The one study to investigate this matter explored factors associated with recruitment in a cohort of 114 multicentre RCTs in more than nine clinical areas, including cancer, cardiology, and obstetrics and gynaecology (18 RCTs had a clinical area classified as ‘other’), and was funded by two public bodies in the UK; the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) and the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme.⁶ RCTs that were funded by the MRC (as compared with the HTA) and were in the clinical area ‘cancer’, had better chances of good recruitment, which was a marginally statistically significant association. The vast heterogeneity of RCTs included in that study hampered the identification of other variables associated with poor recruitment and did not allow the authors to provide useful advice for improvement.

To assess factors that are associated with recruitment failure within the preplanned study period, we performed a nationwide cohort study of RCTs within the homogeneous setting of the Dutch Consortium of Obstetrics and Gynaecology in the Netherlands. Such knowledge is crucial for researchers, trial centres and funding agencies to prevent this type of recruitment failure.

Methods

Study design

This study was designed as a nationwide cohort study and included all multicentre RCTs carried out within the Dutch Consortium for Women’s Health Research, embedded within the professional society, that is, Dutch Society of Obstetrics and Gynaecology.¹¹ The Dutch Consortium for Women’s Health Research facilitated studies in obstetrics, gynaecology and reproductive medicine.

Within the consortium, participating clinical centres are both academic and non-academic hospitals. RCTs conducted within the consortium are supported by a clinical trial centre (https://zorgevaluatienederland.nl/), a multidisciplinary trial bureau with methodologists, data managers, contract managers and trial managers. The trial centre staff supports research groups by advising on the budget, logistics, methods and ethics approval, developing electronic case record forms, performing contract management and monitoring, creating the interim reports for the data safety and monitoring board, and providing advice on the statistical analyses. The findings in our manuscript were reported according to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guideline.¹²

Study population

We included finalised multicentre RCTs supported by the clinical trial centre and performed within the Dutch Consortium for Women’s Health Research, between 1 March 2003 and 1 December 2023. We excluded studies with an observational design, single-centre RCTs, RCTs initiated outside the Netherlands, RCTs with a cluster or parallel study design, RCTs that never actually started, RCTs in which inclusion of patients was still ongoing and RCTs prematurely discontinued for other reasons than poor recruitment, for example, due to safety issues after an interim analysis.

Outcome measures

Main outcome was recruitment target not achieved within 6 months after the preplanned recruitment period. These RCTs were defined as RCTs with recruitment failure. The preplanned recruitment period was documented by the principal investigator before the start of the trial. Secondary outcomes included recruitment target not achieved within an extension period of at least 12 months and premature termination of the trial (defined as stopping with including patients before the recruitment target was achieved). All studies that recruited during the COVID-19 pandemic received 6 months extension of their recruitment period.

In all RCTs, we collected information on variables with a potential effect on recruitment failure, identified after a scoping review. We recorded variables at five levels; patient, doctor, participating centre, study organisation and study design (online supplemental appendix 1).

Statistical analysis

For the primary outcome, we used the planned recruitment period as documented in the General Assessment and Registration form, a form that needs to be submitted to the ethical committee before actual start of the study. If we could not get access to this form, we retrieved this information from the main investigator and/or used the data mentioned in the protocol of the study. The actual recruitment period was calculated as the time between the first and last inclusion dates.

We checked the continuous potential variables with spline curve analysis. We dichotomised on the basis of the spline curve and used the median when the spline curve suggested a straight line. We used univariable logistic regression to evaluate the association between potential variables of recruitment failure and expressed these as ORs with corresponding 95% CIs.

To further explore the most relevant risk factors for recruitment failure, multivariable risk prediction modelling was done by using both forward and backward stepwise logistic regression including all predictors at once (entry p=0.2 and exclusion p=0.1) and expressed these as adjusted ORs with 95% CI.

We used SPSS V.25 (IBM 2019, USA) software for all statistical analyses.

Ethics approval

Our study focused on logistics and design issues and did not include patients as study participants. Consequently, we did not need ethical approval for this study.

Transparency statement

All authors had full access to all the data in the study and the corresponding author had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication. The manuscript is an honest, accurate and transparent account of the study being reported, no important aspects of the study have been omitted, and any discrepancies from the study as originally planned have been explained.

Role of the funding source

This study was supported by a small departmental grant from the Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centres, location AMC.

Public and patient involvement

No patients or members of the public were involved in this study.

Results

Between 1 March 2003 and 1 December 2023, 189 studies started recruitment and were assessed for eligibility. Of these, 106 studies did not fulfil our inclusion criteria, such that in total 83 RCTs were included in the analyses (figure 1). Characteristics of the included studies are summarised in table 1. Fifteen RCTs did not have funding at all (18%). A more detailed list of all RCTs can be found as online supplemental appendix 2.^13–89

Figure 1. Flow diagram of studies. *In four studies on advice of the Data Safety Monitoring Board due to potential safety issues, and in one study because of revised insights based on new evidence. **One study was a follow-up study of an RCT, three were implementation studies, one was a study to develop a decision tool, and one was a preference study. RCT, randomised controlled trial.

Table 1

Characteristics of the included studies

Characteristic	N (%)
Research area
Obstetrics	32 (38)
Reproductive medicine	28 (34)
Oncology	5 (6)
(Uro)gynaecology	18 (22)
Tested intervention
Drugs	20 (24)
Surgery	20 (24)
Infertility treatments	20 (24)
Obstetrical treatments	12 (15)
Gynaecological treatments	2 (2.4)
Diagnostic strategy	6 (7.2)
Tested intervention
Existing intervention	69 (83)
New intervention	14 (17)
Tested intervention
Only available in the study	17 (20)
Available outside the study	66 (80)
Blinding	18 (22)
No blinding	65 (78)
Number of arms
2	77 (93)
>2	6 (7)
Pilot study	17 (20)
No pilot study	66 (80)
Recruiting centres
Only Dutch centres	70 (84)
Including foreign centres	13 (16)
Funding	68 (82)
No funding	15 (18)

Primary and secondary outcomes

In total, 46 of 83 RCTs (55%) did not achieve their targeted recruitment within the preplanned study period with a maximal extension period of 6 months (table 2). Recruitment was not achieved within the preplanned study period with a maximal extension period of 12 months in 41 RCTs (49%). Of these 41 RCTs, 29 studies had a total recruitment period of up to 5 years, and 12 RCTs finished their recruitment within 5–10 years.

Table 2

Recruitment details in the studies with recruitment failure and those with successful recruitment

	Recruitment failure (n=46)		No recruitment failure (n=37)		P value
Actual recruitment in years, mean (SD)	50	(20)	31	(12)	<0.001
0–1 years, n (%)	2	(5)	1	(3)	<0.001
1–2 years, n (%)	3	(5)	6	(16)
2–3 years, n (%)	8	(18)	24	(69)
3–4 years, n (%)	14	(29)	6	(13)
>4 years, n (%)	19	(45)	0	0
Actual recruitment rate/month median (range)	4.5	(0.33–39)	18.5	(4–189)	<0.001

Nineteen RCTs (23%) stopped prematurely due to recruitment issues. Of these 19 RCTs, 4 studies reached 0%–10% of their recruitment target, 6 studies 10%–20%, 2 studies 20%–30%, 5 studies 30%–60% and 2 studies reached 70%–80% of their planned recruitment target.

The mean recruitment period was 50 months (range 12–96 months) for RCTs with recruitment failure versus 31 months (range 12–91 months) for RCTs without recruitment failure. Twenty-two RCTs had a recruitment period of over 48 months. The actual absolute recruitment rate was 4.5 inclusions per month in RCTs with recruitment failure compared with 18.5 inclusions per month in RCTs without recruitment failure (p<0.001).

Potential variables of recruitment failure

The association of the potential variables with RCTs with recruitment failure, that is, RCTs that did not achieve their recruitment target within the preplanned study period with a maximal extension period of 6 months, is shown in table 3.

Table 3

Association with potential variables

	Recruitment
	Failure (n=46)		No failure (n=37)		OR (95% CI)	Adjusted OR (95% CI)*
Variables potentially associated with higher recruitment failure
No treatment arm†	15	(33%)	3	(8%)	5.48 (1.45 to 20.77)	4.95 (1.18 to 20.80)
Arms >2	5	(11%)	1	(3%)	4.39 (0.49 to 39.35)
No funding versus funding	12	(26%)	3	(8%)	4.00 (1.04 to 15.45)
Compensation <€200	30	(65%)	12	(32%)	3.91 (1.56 to 9.78)	2.90 (1.02 to 8.25)
Funding <€350 000	31	(67%)	13	(35%)	3.82 (1.53 to 9.52)	2.99 (1.05 to 8.51)
Inclusion criteria >4	17	(37%)	6	(16%)	3.03 (1.05 to 8.74)
Participating centres >25	17	(38%)	12	(32%)	1.27 (0.51 to 3.16)
Surgical intervention	14	(30%)	9	(24%)	1.17 (0.72 to 1.90)
Variables potentially associated with lower recruitment failure
Pilot study	4	(9%)	13	(35%)	0.18 (0.05 to 0.60)	0.21 (0.05 to 0.83)
New intervention	5	(11%)	9	(24%)	0.38 (0.12 to 1.25)
Competing studies‡	11	(24%)	13	(35%)	0.58 (0.22 to 1.51)
Blinding	8	(17%)	10	(27%)	0.57 (0.20 to 1.63)
Exclusion criteria <5	23	(50%)	23	(58%)	0.82 (0.32 to 2.09)
Intervention available only in trial	9	(20%)	8	(22%)	0.88 (0.30 to 2.57)

Data are in n (%).

Statistically significant associations (P<0.05) are presented in bold.

*Applying both forward and backward stepwise logistic regression on all variables (entry p>0.2, exclusion p>0.1).

†In these RCTs, no treatment was provided, when in daily practice, treatment was the standard.

‡During the recruitment phase of these RCTs, there was another RCT that recruited patients with the same inclusion criteria.

RCT, randomised controlled trial.

Variables associated with higher chances of recruitment failure were presence of a no-treatment arm, having a design with more than two arms, a compensation fee of less than €200 per included patient, funding of less than €350 000 and having more than four inclusion criteria. One variable associated with lower chances on recruitment failure was a preceding pilot study. The most relevant variables for recruitment failure in multivariable risk prediction modelling were presence of a no-treatment arm (OR 4.95, 95% CI 1.18 to 20.80), a compensation fee of less than €200 per included patient (OR 2.90, 95% CI 1.02 to 8.25), funding of less than €350 000 (OR 2.99, 95% CI 1.05 to 8.51), while a preceding pilot study lowered the risk for treatment failure (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.83).

When we compared the 41 RCTs that did not achieve their recruitment target within the preplanned study period with a maximal extension period of 12 months, with the 42 RCTs that completed recruitment within that period, the described associations with treatment failure remained comparable in direction and size.

The most relevant variables for stopping prematurely were the absence of a preceding pilot study and having a no-treatment arm. None of the 19 RCTs that stopped prematurely had performed a pilot study (0%), compared with 17 of the 62 RCTs that completed recruitment (27%). Ten of the 19 RCTs that stopped prematurely had a no-treatment arm (52%), compared with 8 of the 64 RCTs that completed recruitment (12.5%) (OR 6.13, 95% CI 1.98 to 19.06).

Discussion

Main findings

In this nationwide cohort study, 46 of 83 included RCTs (55%) did not achieve their recruitment target within the preplanned study period with a maximal extension period of 6 months. RCTs that had a no-treatment arm, low funding and low financial compensation per included patient were at risk to experience this type of recruitment failure, while a preceding pilot study lowered this risk. On extension of the preplanned study period from 6 months to 12 months, 41 RCTs (49%) still did not achieve the preplanned recruitment target. Nineteen RCTs (23%) were stopped prematurely because of recruitment issues.

Strengths and limitations

Our study has a number of strengths. First, we investigated recruitment failure in 83 RCTs embedded within the infrastructure of the Dutch Consortium for Women’s Health Research—and thus within one homogeneous discipline—with support and monitoring by the clinical trial centre. This allowed us to standardise several important aspects, like trial management and logistics, data collection and data monitoring. Second, we were able to assess all variables with a potential association with poor recruitment as described in literature; type of investigation, placebo-controlled study, treatment versus no treatment, whether the intervention was new or only available in the trial, whether the study was blinded or if there were any competing RCTs, number of study arms, number of inclusion and exclusion criteria, whether a pilot study was performed, number of participating centres, and funding and compensation per included patient.

The main limitation of our study is the number of trials. Obviously, if we could have accessed an even larger cohort of trials, we might have been able to identify more potential variables for recruitment failure. Furthermore, our study was done within a standardised setting which may limit the generalisability as many RCTs are conducted in settings without such an infrastructure. A further limitation may be that within our study we focused on objective variables, such as trial logistics and design issues. Other aspects, like patients’ or practitioners’ perspectives, which may affect recruitment as well were beyond the scope of our study.

In our trials, when the target number of patients was high, the prevalence was high as well. When writing up our protocol, it was decided that this prevalence should not be an input variable. We did a post hoc analysis and found no impact of target number on failure.

Interpretation

The design of a no-treatment arm where treatment is standard clinical practice was associated with recruitment failure. This design is particularly relevant, since we may be overtreating patients while we are actually in equipoise on whether the intervention is effective at all. Possibly, in this design specifically, the preference of the doctor or patient might play a role in the laborious recruitment. A no-treatment arm was also associated with stopping prematurely, supporting its relevance as a risk factor. In our study, 10 (52%) of 19 RCTs that stopped prematurely had a no-treatment arm where current clinical practice treatment is expected.

Not very surprisingly, the lack of funding and compensation fee per included patient (lack of funding and low funding) were associated with recruitment failure. Twelve studies with recruitment failure had no funding at all, compared with three studies without recruitment failure. Along with our finding that extending the recruitment period from 6 months to 12 months did only slightly increase the number of RCTs achieving their preplanned sample size, this has significant clinical, logistical and financial implications. RCTs may reach their recruitment target, but in 12 RCTs in our study, recruitment took up to 10 years. It implies that when recruitment is doomed to fail, it may reach its required sample size in the end, but at the expense of a lot of endurance and extra funding by a willing sponsor. On the other hand, RCTs can still be of extreme clinical importance if the research question is—and remains—relevant. This is shown by a trial that investigated low-molecular-weight heparin in women with recurrent pregnancy loss and inherited thrombophilia, which took seven and a half years years to recruit, but results were eagerly awaited and eventually published in a high impact journal.¹⁵

A preceding pilot study lowers recruitment failure, while a study design with more than two arms or more than four inclusion criteria might increase the chance of recruitment failure, although with a wide CI, perhaps due to small numbers. We believe that conducting a preliminary pilot study can help identify and address potential challenges before the actual study begins. Our results furthermore suggest that a study design involving more than two arms or over four inclusion criteria may complicate the recruitment process excessively. In a review of the literature on factors limiting the quality and progress of RCTs not hampered by recruitment failure, a straightforward study protocol and data collection as well as careful planning were also identified as key factors for completion.⁹⁰

A competing study was not associated with a lower chance on recruitment failure, which is the opposite of what we expected. We hypothesise that when more RCTs in the same field are recruiting patients at the same time, clinicians are more aware of the possibility of including patients in a particular RCT, or when one RCT recruits rapidly, this might be ‘contagious’ for the other RCTs.

It is important to note that our results should not withhold clinicians from conducting RCTs. Investigating the efficacy and safety of treatments and providing robust evidence can be of the utmost importance. Although it is known that the results of randomised and non-randomised studies have a good correlation, non-randomised studies tend to show larger treatment effects, and thus observational studies can be a good adjunct to RCTs, but they cannot replace them.^{91 92} More importantly, our study also shows that RCTs with recruitment that takes many years may answer highly relevant clinical questions and can truly make a big difference in the clinical field. Principal investigators, sponsors and all who are participating in an RCT should be aware of the variables associated with poor recruitment, and that with dedication and persistence the RCT could be successfully completed and published.

Further research on how to improve recruitment efforts and increase the success of obstetrical and gynaecological RCTs is needed. It would also be relevant to explore differences in infrastructure and funding rules and whether these influence recruitment success. Additionally, future research should investigate the perspectives of both patients and practitioners on why participants decline to join RCTs. This research could consider factors such as treatment preferences, as well as patients’ fear, anxiety, mistrust in research, and challenges faced by low-income and non-English-speaking groups.

Conclusion

To conclude, RCTs with a no-treatment arm, low funding and low financial compensation per included patient are more likely to experience recruitment failure, while a preceding pilot study lowers this chance. We propose that investigators and grant providers consider these issues before the start of the actual recruitment of the study, to improve the chances of recruitment success. If a relevant trial is destined to have a suspected long recruitment period, it seems wise to ponder on the question whether to start the trial, or to accept a longer recruitment period with all its consequences.

The authors thank all the clinical and principal investigators of the included RCTs for cooperating in data collection, and Maya Kruijt, policy advisor Zorgevaluatie Nederland, for her advice.

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request.

Ethics statements

Patient consent for publication

Not applicable.

Ethics approval

Not applicable.

Footnote

X @n/a

Collaborators NVOG Consortium group: J Huirne, S Middeldorp, J B Derks, J A M van der Post, M A Oudijk, I M Custers, E Pajkrt, C Willekes, H C J Scheepers, A Kwee, M P Lambregtse-van den Berg, J J Duvekot, V Mijatovic, F J M Broekmans, A Hoek, J P de Bruin, C B Lambalk, M H Mochtar, S Mastenbroek, L Ramos, J P W R Roovers, M J E Mourits, H J van Beekhuizen, F Mol, A Vollebregt, C H van der Vaart, M Y Bongers, K B Kluivers, M E Vierhout, R C Painter, P M A J Geomini.

Contributors JR, MvW, MCvdW and RD conceived the study. JR and RC performed the scoping review, selected the potential variables and collected the data. Differences of opinion and questions regarding the data were resolved with MvW. JR was responsible for the data. JR, RC and MvW analysed the data. JR, MvW, MG and FvdV drafted the manuscript, supported by BWM. All authors contributed to the critical revision of the paper and approved the final manuscript. MvW is responsible for the overall content as guarantor. The authors in the Consortium Group were project leaders on the included RCTs and all critically revised and approved the final mansucript.

Competing interests MG reports department research and educational grants from Guerbet and Ferring (location VUmc) outside the submitted work. BWM reports grants from NHMRC, personal fees from ObsEva, personal fees from Merck KGaA, personal fees from Guerbet, personal fees from iGenomix, outside the submitted work. The other authors report no competing interests.

Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

References

¹ Concato J, Shah N, Horwitz RI. Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs. N Engl J Med 2000; 342: 1887–92. doi:10.1056/NEJM200006223422507

² Hamulyák EN, de Jong PG, Scheres LJJ, et al. Progress of the ALIFE2 study: A dynamic road towards more evidence. Thromb Res 2020; 190: 39–44. doi:10.1016/j.thromres.2020.03.015

³ Al-Shahi Salman R, Beller E, Kagan J, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research regulation and management. Lancet 2014; 383: 176–85. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62297-7

⁴ Chapman SJ, Shelton B, Mahmood H, et al. Discontinuation and non-publication of surgical randomised controlled trials: observational study. BMJ 2014; 349: g6870. doi:10.1136/bmj.g6870

⁵ Kasenda B, von Elm E, You J, et al. Prevalence, characteristics, and publication of discontinued randomized trials. JAMA 2014; 311: 1045–51. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.1361

⁶ McDonald AM, Knight RC, Campbell MK, et al. What influences recruitment to randomised controlled trials? A review of trials funded by two UK funding agencies. Trials 2006; 7: 9. doi:10.1186/1745-6215-7-9

⁷ Mills EJ, Seely D, Rachlis B, et al. Barriers to participation in clinical trials of cancer: a meta-analysis and systematic review of patient-reported factors. Lancet Oncol 2006; 7: 141–8. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(06)70576-9

⁸ Ellis PM. Attitudes towards and participation in randomised clinical trials in oncology: a review of the literature. Ann Oncol 2000; 11: 939–45. doi:10.1023/a:1008342222205

⁹ Abraham NS, Young JM, Solomon MJ. A systematic review of reasons for nonentry of eligible patients into surgical randomized controlled trials. Surgery 2006; 139: 469–83. doi:10.1016/j.surg.2005.08.014

¹⁰ Lasagna L. Problems in publication of clinical trial methodology. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1979; 25: 751–3. doi:10.1002/cpt1979255part2751

¹¹ An assessment of Dutch obstetrics: implementation of 6 randomised trials within a national network. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 2007; 151: 771–5.

¹² Elm E von, Altman DG, Egger M, et al. Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. BMJ 2007; 335: 806–8. doi:10.1136/bmj.39335.541782.AD

¹³ Kop PAL, van Wely M, Nap A, et al. Intracervical insemination versus intrauterine insemination with cryopreserved donor sperm in the natural cycle: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 2022; 37: 1175–82. doi:10.1093/humrep/deac071

¹⁴ Kaandorp SP, Goddijn M, van der Post JAM, et al. Aspirin plus Heparin or Aspirin Alone in Women with Recurrent Miscarriage. N Engl J Med 2010; 362: 1586–96. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1000641

¹⁵ Quenby S, Booth K, Hiller L, et al. Heparin for women with recurrent miscarriage and inherited thrombophilia (ALIFE2): an international open-label, randomised controlled trial. The Lancet 2023; 402: 54–61. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(23)00693-1

¹⁶ Kaandorp JJ, Benders MJNL, Schuit E, et al. Maternal allopurinol administration during suspected fetal hypoxia: a novel neuroprotective intervention? A multicentre randomised placebo controlled trial. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2015; 100: F216–23. doi:10.1136/archdischild-2014-306769

¹⁷ Lim AC, Schuit E, Bloemenkamp K, et al. 17α-hydroxyprogesterone caproate for the prevention of adverse neonatal outcome in multiple pregnancies: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2011; 118: 513–20. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e31822ad6aa

¹⁸ Zaat T, de Bruin J-P, Goddijn M, et al. Home-based monitoring of ovulation to time frozen embryo transfers in the Netherlands (Antarctica-2): an open-label, nationwide, randomised, non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2023; 402: 1347–55. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(23)01312-0

¹⁹ Vis JY, van Baaren G-J, Wilms FF, et al. Randomized comparison of nifedipine and placebo in fibronectin-negative women with symptoms of preterm labor and a short cervix (APOSTEL-I Trial). Am J Perinatol 2015; 32: 451–60. doi:10.1055/s-0034-1390346

²⁰ Roos C, Spaanderman MEA, Schuit E, et al. Effect of maintenance tocolysis with nifedipine in threatened preterm labor on perinatal outcomes: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2013; 309: 41–7. doi:10.1001/jama.2012.153817

²¹ van Vliet EOG, Nijman TAJ, Schuit E, et al. Nifedipine versus atosiban for threatened preterm birth (APOSTEL III): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2016; 387: 2117–24. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00548-1

²² Nijman TAJ, van Vliet EOG, Naaktgeboren CA, et al. Nifedipine versus placebo in the treatment of preterm prelabor rupture of membranes: a randomized controlled trial: Assessment of perinatal outcome by use of tocolysis in early labor-APOSTEL IV trial. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2016; 205: 79–84. doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.08.024

²³ Klumper J, Breebaart W, Roos C, et al. Study protocol for a randomised trial for atosiban versus placebo in threatened preterm birth: the APOSTEL 8 study. BMJ Open 2019; 9: e029101. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029101

²⁴ Landman AJEMC, de Boer MA, Visser L, et al. Evaluation of low-dose aspirin in the prevention of recurrent spontaneous preterm labour (the APRIL study): A multicentre, randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial. PLoS Med 2022; 19: e1003892. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1003892

²⁵ Custers IM, Flierman PA, Maas P, et al. Immobilisation versus immediate mobilisation after intrauterine insemination: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2009; 339: b4080. doi:10.1136/bmj.b4080

²⁶ Dancet EAF, D’Hooghe TM, Dreischor F, et al. The ‘Pleasure&Pregnancy’ web-based interactive educational programme versus expectant management in the treatment of unexplained subfertility: protocol for a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open 2019; 9: e025845. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025845

²⁷ van der Ploeg J, Oude Rengerink K, van der Steen A, et al. Transvaginal prolapse repair with or without the addition of a midurethral sling in women with genital prolapse and stress urinary incontinence: a randomised trial. BJOG 2015; 122: 1022–30. doi:10.1111/1471-0528.13325

²⁸ van der Ploeg JM, Rengerink KO, van der Steen A, et al. Vaginal prolapse repair with or without a midurethral sling in women with genital prolapse and occult stress urinary incontinence: a randomized trial. Int Urogynecol J 2016; 27: 1029–38. doi:10.1007/s00192-015-2924-1

²⁹ Dreyer K, Lier MCI, Emanuel MH, et al. Hysteroscopic proximal tubal occlusion versus laparoscopic salpingectomy as a treatment for hydrosalpinges prior to IVF or ICSI: an RCT. Hum Reprod 2016; 31: 2005–16. doi:10.1093/humrep/dew050

³⁰ Boers KE, Vijgen SMC, Bijlenga D, et al. Induction versus expectant monitoring for intrauterine growth restriction at term: randomised equivalence trial (DIGITAT). BMJ 2010; 341: c7087. doi:10.1136/bmj.c7087

³¹ Mol F, van Mello NM, Strandell A, et al. Salpingotomy versus salpingectomy in women with tubal pregnancy (ESEP study): an open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2014; 383: 1483–9. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60123-9

³² Vodegel EV, Zwolsman SE, Vollebregt A, et al. Cost-Effectiveness of perioperative Vaginally Administered estrogen in postmenopausal women undergoing prolapse surgery (EVA trial): study protocol for a multicenter double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial. BMC Womens Health 2021; 21: 439. doi:10.1186/s12905-021-01587-9

³³ Wessel JA, Mochtar MH, Besselink DE, et al. Expectant management versus IUI in unexplained subfertility and a poor pregnancy prognosis (EXIUI study): a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 2022; 37: 2808–16. doi:10.1093/humrep/deac236

³⁴ van Welie N, van Rijswijk J, Dreyer K, et al. Can hysterosalpingo-foam sonography replace hysterosalpingography as first-choice tubal patency test? A randomized non-inferiority trial. Hum Reprod 2022; 37: 969–79. doi:10.1093/humrep/deac034

³⁵ Voormolen DN, DeVries JH, Sanson RME, et al. Continuous glucose monitoring during diabetic pregnancy (GlucoMOMS): A multicentre randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Obes Metab 2018; 20: 1894–902. doi:10.1111/dom.13310

³⁶ Dreyer K, van Rijswijk J, Mijatovic V, et al. Oil-Based or Water-Based Contrast for Hysterosalpingography in Infertile Women. N Engl J Med 2017; 376: 2043–52. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1612337

³⁷ Bistervels IM, Buchmüller A, Wiegers HMG, et al. Intermediate-dose versus low-dose low-molecular-weight heparin in pregnant and post-partum women with a history of venous thromboembolism (Highlow study): an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet 2022; 400: 1777–87. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(22)02128-6

³⁸ Koopmans CM, Bijlenga D, Groen H, et al. Induction of labour versus expectant monitoring for gestational hypertension or mild pre-eclampsia after 36 weeks’ gestation (HYPITAT): a multicentre, open-label randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2009; 374: 979–88. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60736-4

³⁹ Broekhuijsen K, van Baaren G-J, van Pampus MG, et al. Immediate delivery versus expectant monitoring for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy between 34 and 37 weeks of gestation (HYPITAT-II): an open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2015; 385: 2492–501. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61998-X

⁴⁰ Vervoort AJMW, Van der Voet LF, Witmer M, et al. The HysNiche trial: hysteroscopic resection of uterine caesarean scar defect (niche) in patients with abnormal bleeding, a randomised controlled trial. BMC Womens Health 2015; 15: 103. doi:10.1186/s12905-015-0260-8

⁴¹ Keulen JK, Bruinsma A, Kortekaas JC, et al. Induction of labour at 41 weeks versus expectant management until 42 weeks (INDEX): multicentre, randomised non-inferiority trial. BMJ 2019; 364: l344. doi:10.1136/bmj.l344

⁴² Bensdorp AJ, Tjon-Kon-Fat RI, Bossuyt PMM, et al. Prevention of multiple pregnancies in couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility: randomised controlled trial of in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer or in vitro fertilisation in modified natural cycle compared with intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. BMJ 2015; 350: g7771. doi:10.1136/bmj.g7771

⁴³ Bakker JJH, Verhoeven CJM, Janssen PF, et al. Outcomes after internal versus external tocodynamometry for monitoring labor. N Engl J Med 2010; 362: 306–13. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0902748

⁴⁴ Rutten MJ, van Meurs HS, van de Vrie R, et al. Laparoscopy to Predict the Result of Primary Cytoreductive Surgery in Patients With Advanced Ovarian Cancer: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Clin Oncol 2017; 35: 613–21. doi:10.1200/JCO.2016.69.2962

⁴⁵ Mutsaerts MAQ, van Oers AM, Groen H, et al. Randomized Trial of a Lifestyle Program in Obese Infertile Women. N Engl J Med 2016; 374: 1942–53. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1505297

⁴⁶ Weiss NS, Nahuis MJ, Bordewijk E, et al. Gonadotrophins versus clomifene citrate with or without intrauterine insemination in women with normogonadotropic anovulation and clomifene failure (M-OVIN): a randomised, two-by-two factorial trial. Lancet 2018; 391: 758–65. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(17)33308-1

⁴⁷ Beelen P, van den Brink MJ, Herman MC, et al. Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system versus endometrial ablation for heavy menstrual bleeding. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2021; 224: S0002-9378(20)30844-9. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2020.08.016

⁴⁸ Oderkerk TJ, Beelen P, Geomini PMAJ, et al. Endometrial ablation plus levonorgestrel releasing intrauterine system versus endometrial ablation alone in women with heavy menstrual bleeding: study protocol of a multicentre randomised controlled trial; MIRA2 trial. BMC Womens Health 2022; 22: 257. doi:10.1186/s12905-022-01843-6

⁴⁹ Lemmers M, Verschoor MAC, Oude Rengerink K, et al. MisoREST: surgical versus expectant management in women with an incomplete evacuation of the uterus after misoprostol treatment for miscarriage: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 2016; 31: 2421–7. doi:10.1093/humrep/dew221

⁵⁰ Grooten IJ, Koot MH, van der Post JA, et al. Early enteral tube feeding in optimizing treatment of hyperemesis gravidarum: the Maternal and Offspring outcomes after Treatment of HyperEmesis by Refeeding (MOTHER) randomized controlled trial. Am J Clin Nutr 2017; 106: 812–20. doi:10.3945/ajcn.117.158931

⁵¹ Oudshoorn SC, van Tilborg TC, Eijkemans MJC, et al. Individualized versus standard FSH dosing in women starting IVF/ICSI: an RCT. Part 2: The predicted hyper responder. Hum Reprod 2017; 32: 2506–14. doi:10.1093/humrep/dex319

⁵² van Tilborg TC, Torrance HL, Oudshoorn SC, et al. Individualized versus standard FSH dosing in women starting IVF/ICSI: an RCT. Part 1: The predicted poor responder. Hum Reprod 2017; 32: 2496–505. doi:10.1093/humrep/dex318

⁵³ van der Vaart LR, Vollebregt A, Milani AL, et al. Effect of Pessary vs Surgery on Patient-Reported Improvement in Patients With Symptomatic Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 2022; 328: 2312–23. doi:10.1001/jama.2022.22385

⁵⁴ van Hanegem N, Breijer MC, Slockers SA, et al. Diagnostic workup for postmenopausal bleeding: a randomised controlled trial. BJOG 2017; 124: 231–40. doi:10.1111/1471-0528.14126

⁵⁵ Labrie J, Berghmans BLCM, Fischer K, et al. Surgery versus physiotherapy for stress urinary incontinence. N Engl J Med 2013; 369: 1124–33. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1210627

⁵⁶ van der Ham DP, van der Heyden JL, Opmeer BC, et al. Management of late-preterm premature rupture of membranes: the PPROMEXIL-2 trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012; 207: S0002-9378(12)00776-4. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2012.07.024

⁵⁷ van der Ham DP, Vijgen SMC, Nijhuis JG, et al. Induction of labor versus expectant management in women with preterm prelabor rupture of membranes between 34 and 37 weeks: a randomized controlled trial. PLoS Med 2012; 9: e1001208. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001208

⁵⁸ van Kempen LEM, van Teeffelen AS, de Ruigh AA, et al. Amnioinfusion Compared With No Intervention in Women With Second-Trimester Rupture of Membranes: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Obstet Gynecol 2019; 133: 129–36. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000003003

⁵⁹ Jozwiak M, Oude Rengerink K, Benthem M, et al. Foley catheter versus vaginal prostaglandin E2 gel for induction of labour at term (PROBAAT trial): an open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2011; 378: 2095–103. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61484-0

⁶⁰ Ten Eikelder MLG, Oude Rengerink K, Jozwiak M, et al. Induction of labour at term with oral misoprostol versus a Foley catheter (PROBAAT-II): a multicentre randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2016; 387: 1619–28. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00084-2

⁶¹ van der Meulen JF, Bongers MY, Coppus SFPJ, et al. The (cost) effectiveness of procedural sedation and analgesia versus general anaesthesia for hysteroscopic myomectomy, a multicentre randomised controlled trial: PROSECCO trial, a study protocol. BMC Womens Health 2019; 19: 46. doi:10.1186/s12905-019-0742-1

⁶² Liem S, Schuit E, Hegeman M, et al. Cervical pessaries for prevention of preterm birth in women with a multiple pregnancy (ProTWIN): a multicentre, open-label randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2013; 382: 1341–9. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61408-7

⁶³ van Zijl MD, Koullali B, Naaktgeboren CA, et al. Pessary or Progesterone to Prevent Preterm delivery in women with short cervical length: the Quadruple P randomised controlled trial. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2017; 17: 284. doi:10.1186/s12884-017-1454-x

⁶⁴ Freeman LM, Bloemenkamp KW, Franssen MT, et al. Patient controlled analgesia with remifentanil versus epidural analgesia in labour: randomised multicentre equivalence trial. BMJ 2015; 350: h846. doi:10.1136/bmj.h846

⁶⁵ Coolen A-LWM, van Oudheusden AMJ, Mol BWJ, et al. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy compared with open abdominal sacrocolpopexy for vault prolapse repair: a randomised controlled trial. Int Urogynecol J 2017; 28: 1469–79. doi:10.1007/s00192-017-3296-5

⁶⁶ Enklaar RA, Schulten SFM, van Eijndhoven HWF, et al. Manchester Procedure vs Sacrospinous Hysteropexy for Treatment of Uterine Descent: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 2023; 330: 626–35. doi:10.1001/jama.2023.13140

⁶⁷ Detollenaere RJ, den Boon J, Stekelenburg J, et al. Sacrospinous hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy with suspension of the uterosacral ligaments in women with uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: multicentre randomised non-inferiority trial. BMJ 2015; 351: h3717. doi:10.1136/bmj.h3717

⁶⁸ van Hoogenhuijze NE, Mol F, Laven JSE, et al. Endometrial scratching in women with one failed IVF/ICSI cycle-outcomes of a randomised controlled trial (SCRaTCH). Hum Reprod 2021; 36: 87–98. doi:10.1093/humrep/deaa268

⁶⁹ Bui BN, Torrance HL, Janssen C, et al. Does endometrial scratching increase the rate of spontaneous conception in couples with unexplained infertility and a good prognosis (Hunault > 30%)? Study protocol of the SCRaTCH-OFO trial: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2018; 18: 511. doi:10.1186/s12884-018-2160-z

⁷⁰ Kieslinger DC, Vergouw CG, Ramos L, et al. Clinical outcomes of uninterrupted embryo culture with or without time-lapse-based embryo selection versus interrupted standard culture (SelecTIMO): a three-armed, multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2023; 401: 1438–46. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(23)00168-X

⁷¹ van de Laar R, Kruitwagen RFPM, Zusterzeel PLM, et al. Correspondence: Premature Stop of the SOCceR Trial, a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial on Secondary Cytoreductive Surgery: Netherlands Trial Register Number: NTR3337. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2017; 27: 2. doi:10.1097/IGC.0000000000000841

⁷² van Barneveld E, Veth VB, Sampat JM, et al. SOMA-trial: surgery or medication for women with an endometrioma? Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial and cohort study. Hum Reprod Open 2020; 2020: hoz046. doi:10.1093/hropen/hoz046

⁷³ Westerhuis MEMH, Visser GHA, Moons KGM, et al. Cardiotocography plus ST analysis of fetal electrocardiogram compared with cardiotocography only for intrapartum monitoring: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 115: 1173–80. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181dfffd6

⁷⁴ Balkenende EME, Dahhan T, Beerendonk CCM, et al. Fertility preservation for women with breast cancer: a multicentre randomized controlled trial on various ovarian stimulation protocols. Hum Reprod 2022; 37: 1786–94. doi:10.1093/humrep/deac145

⁷⁵ Molenaar NM, Brouwer ME, Burger H, et al. Preventive Cognitive Therapy With Antidepressant Discontinuation During Pregnancy: Results From a Randomized Controlled Trial. J Clin Psychiatry 2020; 81: 19l13099. doi:10.4088/JCP.19l13099

⁷⁶ de Wit L, Rademaker D, Voormolen DN, et al. SUGAR-DIP trial: oral medication strategy versus insulin for diabetes in pregnancy, study protocol for a multicentre, open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open 2019; 9: e029808. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029808

⁷⁷ Danhof NA, van Wely M, Repping S, et al. Follicle stimulating hormone versus clomiphene citrate in intrauterine insemination for unexplained subfertility: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 2018; 33: 1866–74. doi:10.1093/humrep/dey268

⁷⁸ van Dijk MM, Vissenberg R, Fliers E, et al. Levothyroxine in euthyroid thyroid peroxidase antibody positive women with recurrent pregnancy loss (T4LIFE trial): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2022; 10: 322–9. doi:10.1016/S2213-8587(22)00045-6

⁷⁹ Mourits MJE, Bijen CB, Arts HJ, et al. Safety of laparoscopy versus laparotomy in early-stage endometrial cancer: a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 2010; 11: 763–71. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70143-1

⁸⁰ Cornelisse S, Ramos L, Arends B, et al. Comparing the cumulative live birth rate of cleavage-stage versus blastocyst-stage embryo transfers between IVF cycles: a study protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled superiority trial (the ToF trial). BMJ Open 2021; 11: e042395. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-042395

⁸¹ Duvekot JJ, Duijnhoven RG, van Horen E, et al. Temporizing management vs immediate delivery in early‐onset severe preeclampsia between 28 and 34 weeks of gestation (TOTEM study): An open‐label randomized controlled trial. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2021; 100: 109–18. doi:10.1111/aogs.13976

⁸² van Os M, van der Ven A, Kleinrouweler C, et al. Preventing Preterm Birth with Progesterone in Women with a Short Cervical Length from a Low-Risk Population: A Multicenter Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Randomized Trial. Amer J Perinatol 2015; 32: 993–1000. doi:10.1055/s-0035-1547327

⁸³ Rikken JFW, Kowalik CR, Emanuel MH, et al. Septum resection versus expectant management in women with a septate uterus: an international multicentre open-label randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 2021; 36: 1260–7. doi:10.1093/humrep/deab037

⁸⁴ van de Laar RLO, Hofhuis W, Duijnhoven RG, et al. Adjuvant VACcination against HPV in surgical treatment of Cervical Intra-epithelial Neoplasia (VACCIN study) a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. BMC Cancer 2020; 20: 539. doi:10.1186/s12885-020-07025-7

⁸⁵ van Leijsen SAL, Kluivers KB, Mol BWJ, et al. Protocol for the value of urodynamics prior to stress incontinence surgery (VUSIS) study: a multicenter randomized controlled trial to assess the cost effectiveness of urodynamics in women with symptoms of stress urinary incontinence in whom surgical treatment is considered. BMC Womens Health 2009; 9: 22. doi:10.1186/1472-6874-9-22

⁸⁶ van Leijsen SAL, Kluivers KB, Mol BWJ, et al. Value of urodynamics before stress urinary incontinence surgery: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2013; 121: 999–1008. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e31828c68e3

⁸⁷ Kroese JA, van der Velde M, Morssink LP, et al. Word catheter and marsupialisation in women with a cyst or abscess of the Bartholin gland (WoMan-trial): a randomised clinical trial. BJOG 2017; 124: 243–9. doi:10.1111/1471-0528.14281

⁸⁸ Prick BW, Jansen AJG, Steegers EAP, et al. Transfusion policy after severe postpartum haemorrhage: a randomised non-inferiority trial. BJOG 2014; 121: 1005–14. doi:10.1111/1471-0528.12531

⁸⁹ van Leijsen SAL, Kluivers KB, Mol BWJ, et al. Can preoperative urodynamic investigation be omitted in women with stress urinary incontinence? A non-inferiority randomized controlled trial. Neurourol Urodyn 2012; 31: 1118–23. doi:10.1002/nau.22230

⁹⁰ Prescott RJ, Counsell CE, Gillespie WJ, et al. Factors that limit the quality, number and progress of randomised controlled trials. Health Technol Assess 1999; 3: 1–143.

⁹¹ Ioannidis JPA. Comparison of Evidence of Treatment Effects in Randomized and Nonrandomized Studies. JAMA 2001; 286: 821. doi:10.1001/jama.286.7.821

⁹² Pocock SJ, Elbourne DR. Randomized trials or observational tribulations? N Engl J Med 2000; 342: 1907–9. doi:10.1056/NEJM200006223422511