ArticleClinical trials (London, England)2015
Gatekeepers for pragmatic clinical trials.
Article in Clinical trials (London, England), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 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
29 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Hospital recruitment for a pragmatic cluster-randomized clinical trial: Lessons learned from the COMPASS study.Trials · 2018Trial
- A Framework of Institutional Obligations for Pragmatic Clinical Trials.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2026Article
- A framework for health systems to assess and prioritize participation in pragmatic clinical trials.Learning health systems · 2025Article
- Article
- A Mixed-Methods Approach to Assessing Barriers and Facilitators to Cancer Genetics Care in Black and Latino/a Individuals Impacted by Pancreatic Cancer: The Racial/ethnic Equity in GENetic Education, Risk Assessment, and TEsting (REGENERATE) Study.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2025Article
- Novel approaches to recruiting clinical sites for embedded pragmatic clinical trials: Insights from the AIM-back trial.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2025Article
- Who presents the greatest challenge in intellectual disability research- participants or health and research professionals?PloS one · 2025Article
- Post-trial responsibilities in pragmatic clinical trials: Fulfilling the promise of research to drive real-world change.Learning health systems · 2024Article
- Stakeholder perspectives on data sharing from pragmatic clinical trials: Unanticipated challenges for meeting emerging requirements.Learning health systems · 2024Article
- Think Pragmatically: Investigators' Obligations to Patient-Subjects When Research is Embedded in Care.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2023Article
- Article
- Ethical and epistemic issues in the design and conduct of pragmatic stepped-wedge cluster randomized clinical trials.Contemporary clinical trials · 2022Article
- Justice and equity in pragmatic clinical trials: Considerations for pain research within integrated health systems.Learning health systems · 2022Article
- Partnering with healthcare facilities to understand psychosocial distress screening practices among cancer survivors: pilot study implications for study design, recruitment, and data collection.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- Public Attitudes toward Consent When Research Is Integrated into Care-Any "Ought" from All the "Is"?The Hastings Center report · 2021Article
- Patient Partner Perspectives Regarding Ethically and Clinically Important Aspects of Trial Design in Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Trials for Hemodialysis.Canadian journal of kidney health and disease · 2021Article
- Ethical and Regulatory Issues for Embedded Pragmatic Trials Involving People Living with Dementia.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2020Article
- Gatekeeping in cancer clinical trials in Canada: The ethics of recruiting the "ideal" patient.Cancer medicine · 2020Article
- Article
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
To successfully implement a pragmatic clinical trial, investigators need access to numerous resources, including financial support, institutional infrastructure (e.g. clinics, facilities, staff), eligible patients, and patient data. Gatekeepers are people or entities who have the ability to allow or deny access to the resources required to support the conduct of clinical research. Based on this definition, gatekeepers relevant to the US clinical research enterprise include research sponsors, regulatory agencies, payers, health system and other organizational leadership, research team leadership, human research protections programs, advocacy and community groups, and clinicians. This article provides a framework to help guide gatekeepers' decision-making related to the use of resources for pragmatic clinical trials. Relevant ethical considerations for gatekeepers include (1) concern for the interests of individuals, groups, and communities affected by the gatekeepers' decisions, including protection from harm and maximization of benefits; (2) advancement of organizational mission and values; and (3) stewardship of financial, human, and other organizational resources. Separate from these ethical considerations, gatekeepers' actions will be guided by relevant federal, state, and local regulations. This framework also suggests that to further enhance the legitimacy of their decision-making, gatekeepers should adopt transparent processes that engage relevant stakeholders when feasible and appropriate. We apply this framework to the set of gatekeepers responsible for making decisions about resources necessary for pragmatic clinical trials in the United States, describing the relevance of the criteria in different situations and pointing out where conflicts among the criteria and relevant regulations may affect decision-making. Recognition of the complex set of considerations that should inform decision-making will guide gatekeepers in making justifiable choices regarding the use of limited and valuable resources.
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.