Are we enrolling the right patients? A scoping review of external validity and generalizability of clinical trials in bloodstream infections

Background Having a representative population in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) improves external validity and generalizability of trial results. There are limited data examining differences between RCT-enrolled and real-world populations in bloodstream infections (BSI). Objectives We conducted a scoping review aiming to review studies assessing generalizability of BSI RCT populations, to identify sub-groups that have been systematically under-represented and to explore approaches to improve external validity of future RCTs. Sources MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for terms related to external validity or generalizability, BSI, and clinical trials in papers published up to 1 August 2023. Studies comparing enrolled versus nonenrolled patients, or papers discussing external validity or generalizability in the context of BSI RCTs were included. Content Sixteen papers were included in the final review. Five compared RCT-enrolled and nonenrolled participants from the same source population. There were significant differences between the two groups in all studies, with nonenrolled patients having a greater comorbidity burden and consistently worse outcomes including mortality. We identified several barriers to improving generalizability of RCT populations and outlined potential approaches to reduce these barriers, such as alternative/simplified consent processes, streamlining eligibility criteria and follow-up procedures, quota-based sampling techniques, and ensuring diversity in site and study team selection. Implications Study cohorts in BSI RCTs are not representative of the general BSI patient population. As we increasingly adopt large pragmatic trials in infectious diseases, it is important to recognize the importance of maximizing generalizability to ensure that our research findings are of direct relevance to our patients.