Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25848593›Full record

ArticleEGEMS (Washington, DC)2014

Accelerating regulatory progress in multi-institutional research.

Andrea R Paolino, Sherry Lee Lauf, Lisa E Pieper, Jared Rowe, Ileana M Vargas, Melissa A Goff, Matthew F Daley, Leah Tuzzio, John F Steiner

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EGEMS (Washington, DC), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Andrea R PaolinoKaiser Permanente Colorado Institute for Health Research.
Sherry Lee LaufGroup Health Research Institute Cancer Research Network.
Lisa E PieperKaiser Permanente Colorado Institute for Health Research.
Jared RoweKaiser Permanente Colorado Compliance Department.
Ileana M VargasKaiser Permanente Colorado Compliance Department.
Melissa A GoffKaiser Permanente Colorado Compliance Department.
Matthew F DaleyKaiser Permanente Colorado Institute for Health Research.
Leah TuzzioGroup Health Research Institute Cancer Research Network.
John F SteinerKaiser Permanente Colorado Institute for Health Research.
Kaiser Permanente · USResearch Network (United States) · US

Funding

The HMO Cancer Research Network (CRN)U19CA079689 · NCI · KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN OF WASHINGTON · PI MAZOR, KATHLEEN MICHELE · 1999 to 2011
$62.6M
Multi-institutional Consortium for CER in Diabetes Treatment and PreventionR01HS019859 · AHRQ · KAISER FOUNDATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI STEINER, JOHN F · 2010 to 2010
$8.9M
Scalable PArtnering Network for CER: Across Lifespan, Conditions, and SettingsR01HS019912 · AHRQ · KAISER FOUNDATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI DALEY, MATTHEW FREDRICK · 2010 to 2010
$8.3M
AcademyHealth Electronic Data Methods (EDM) Forum for Comparative Effectiveness RU13HS019564 · AHRQ · ACADEMYHEALTH · PI HOLVE, ERIN C · 2010 to 2010
$3.9M
AHRQ HHS R01 HS019859AHRQ HHS R01 HS019912AHRQ HHS U13 HS019564NCI NIH HHS U19 CA079689
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeMulti-institutional collaborations are necessary in order to create large and robust data sets that are needed to answer important comparative effectiveness research (CER) questions. Before scientific work can begin, a complex maze of administrative and regulatory requirements must be efficiently navigated to avoid project delays. INNOVATION: Staff from research, regulatory, and administrative teams involved in three HMO Research Network (HMORN) multi-institutional collaborations developed and employed novel approaches: to secure and maintain Institutional Review Board (IRB) approvals; to enable data sharing, and to expedite subawards for two data-only minimal risk studies. These novel approaches accelerated required processes and approvals while maintaining regulatory, human subjects, and institutional protections. CREDIBILITY: Outcomes from the processes described here are compared with processes outlined in the research and regulatory literature and with processes that have been used in previous multisite research collaborations. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION: Research, regulatory, and administrative staff are essential contributors to the success of multi-institutional collaborations. Their flexibility, creativity, and effective communication skills can lead to the development of efficient approaches to achieving the necessary oversight for these complex projects. Elements of these specific strategies can be adapted and used by other research networks. Other efforts in these areas should be evaluated and shared. The processes that help develop a "learning research system" play an important and complementary role in sustaining multi-institutional research collaborations.

Indexed as

Administrative EfficiencyData agreementInstitutional Review BoardSubawardSubcontract

Identifiers

PMID25848593
PMCPMC4371517
OpenAlexW2116842641

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.