Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21085484›Full record

ArticlePloS one2010

Standardizing clinical trials workflow representation in UML for international site comparison.

Elias Cesar Araujo de Carvalho, Madhav Kishore Jayanti, Adelia Portero Batilana, Andreia M O Kozan, Maria J Rodrigues, Jatin Shah, Marco R Loures, Sunita Patil, Philip Payne, Ricardo Pietrobon

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. A Design Methodology for Medical Processes.Applied clinical informatics · 2016
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Time motion studies in healthcare: what are we talking about?Journal of biomedical informatics · 2014
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Elias Cesar Araujo de CarvalhoResearch on Research Group, Department of Surgery, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America.
Madhav Kishore Jayanti
Adelia Portero Batilana
Andreia M O Kozan
Maria J Rodrigues
Jatin Shah
Marco R Loures
Sunita Patil
Philip Payne
Ricardo Pietrobon

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWith the globalization of clinical trials, a growing emphasis has been placed on the standardization of the workflow in order to ensure the reproducibility and reliability of the overall trial. Despite the importance of workflow evaluation, to our knowledge no previous studies have attempted to adapt existing modeling languages to standardize the representation of clinical trials. Unified Modeling Language (UML) is a computational language that can be used to model operational workflow, and a UML profile can be developed to standardize UML models within a given domain. This paper's objective is to develop a UML profile to extend the UML Activity Diagram schema into the clinical trials domain, defining a standard representation for clinical trial workflow diagrams in UML.

methodsTwo Brazilian clinical trial sites in rheumatology and oncology were examined to model their workflow and collect time-motion data. UML modeling was conducted in Eclipse, and a UML profile was developed to incorporate information used in discrete event simulation software.

resultsEthnographic observation revealed bottlenecks in workflow: these included tasks requiring full commitment of CRCs, transferring notes from paper to computers, deviations from standard operating procedures, and conflicts between different IT systems. Time-motion analysis revealed that nurses' activities took up the most time in the workflow and contained a high frequency of shorter duration activities. Administrative assistants performed more activities near the beginning and end of the workflow. Overall, clinical trial tasks had a greater frequency than clinic routines or other general activities.

conclusionsThis paper describes a method for modeling clinical trial workflow in UML and standardizing these workflow diagrams through a UML profile. In the increasingly global environment of clinical trials, the standardization of workflow modeling is a necessary precursor to conducting a comparative analysis of international clinical trials workflows.

Indexed as

Models, TheoreticalProgramming LanguagesWorkflowAlgorithmsBrazilClinical Trials as TopicComputer SimulationHumansInternational CooperationMedical OncologyReference StandardsRheumatology

Identifiers

PMID21085484
PMCPMC2976698

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.