ArticleJournal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM
A novel protocol for streamlined IRB review of Practice-based Research Network (PBRN) card studies.
Article in Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe "card study," in which clinicians record brief information about patient visits during usual clinical care, has long been a rapid method for conducting descriptive studies in practice-based research networks. Because an increasingly stringent regulatory environment has made conducting card studies difficult, we developed a streamlined method for obtaining card study institutional review board (IRB) approval.
methodsWe developed a protocol for a study of the card study method, allowing new card study proposals of specific research questions to be submitted as addenda to the approved Card Study Protocol.
resultsSeven card studies were proposed and approved under the Card Study Protocol during the first year after implementation, contrasted with one-card study proposed in the previous year. New card study ideas submitted as addenda to an approved protocol appeared to increase IRB comfort with the card study as a minimal risk method while reducing the hurdles to developing new study ideas.
conclusionsA Card Study Protocol allowing new study questions to be submitted as addenda decreases time between idea generation and IRB approval. Shortened turn-around times may be useful for translating ideas into action while reducing regulatory burden.
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.