ArticleAmerican journal of surgery2012
Trials and tribulations: the professional development of surgical trialists.
Article in American journal of surgery, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Barriers and facilitators experienced in collaborative prospective research in orthopaedic oncology: A qualitative study.Bone & joint research · 2017Article
- Do surgical trials meet the scientific standards for clinical trials?Journal of the American College of Surgeons · 2012Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRegulatory and professional bodies issue an ever-increasing number of guidance documents on the ethics and methods of clinical trials, but the quality of clinical trials of invasive therapeutic procedures continues to be a concern. We interviewed aspiring and accomplished surgical trialists to understand how they use guidance documents and other resources in their work.
methodsWe performed a qualitative research study involving semistructured interviews of a diverse sample of 15 surgical trialists.
resultsProfessional development as a surgical trialist was haphazard, inefficient, and marked by avoidable mistakes. Four types of resources played constructive roles: formal education; written materials on clinical trials; experience with actual trials; and interpersonal interactions with peers, experts, collaborators, and mentors. Recommendations for improvement centered on education, mentoring, networking, participating in trials, and facilitation by department chairs.
conclusionsThe haphazard and unstructured nature of the current system is adding unnecessarily to the numerous challenges faced by surgical trialists.
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.