ArticleArchives of ophthalmology (Chicago, Ill. : 1960)2004
Clinical trial performance of community- vs university-based practices in the submacular surgery trials (SST): SST report no. 2.
Article in Archives of ophthalmology (Chicago, Ill. : 1960), 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Surgery for hemorrhagic choroidal neovascular lesions of age-related macular degeneration: ophthalmic findings: SST report no. 13.Ophthalmology · 2004Trial
- The MATE trial: a multicentre, mixed-methodology, pilot, randomised controlled trial in neovascular age-related macular degeneration.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2023Article
- Requirements and Study Designs for U.S. Regulatory Approval of Influenza Home Tests.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2022Review
- Recruitment of participants to a multiple sclerosis trial: the CombiRx experience.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2014Article
- Improving the recruitment activity of clinicians in randomised controlled trials: a systematic review.BMJ open · 2012Article
- Age-related macular degeneration: current treatments.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the performance of community- vs university-based clinical centers in 3 multicenter randomized clinical trials of intraocular surgery.
methodsEach Submacular Surgery Trials clinical center was classified as a university-based center, if the contract to perform as a center was signed by a university official, or as a community-based center. The 2 groups of centers were compared on performance, assessed cumulatively by the Submacular Surgery Trials Quality Assurance and Monitoring Subcommittee. OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient accrual, completion of scheduled examinations, completion of masked vision examinations 2 years after enrollment (the designated primary study end point evaluation time), timeliness of submission of retinal photographs required by protocol to the Photograph Reading Center, completion of health- and vision-related quality-of-life interviews, and timeliness of submission of the primary outcome data to the Coordinating Center after completion of the examination.
resultsAlmost all centers performed at a very high (good) level, although there was a trend for some community-based centers to be at the lower end of most distributions.
conclusionsMost community- and university-based centers performed well in these multicenter clinical trials. Monitoring performance and periodically providing feedback to clinical center investigators may encourage excellent performance in areas critical to the success of clinical trials, regardless of whether the center is community or university based.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.