ReviewIranian Red Crescent medical journal2015
Project Management of Randomized Clinical Trials: A Narrative Review.
Review in Iranian Red Crescent medical journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Conducting Digital Health Care Research: Document Analysis of Challenges Experienced During Intervention Development and Feasibility Study Setup of an Internet-Administered Intervention for Parents of Children Treated for Cancer.JMIR formative research · 2021Article
- Learning from OCTET - exploring the acceptability of clinical trials management methods.Trials · 2018Article
- Recruiting primary care practices for practice-based research: a case study of a group-randomized study (TRANSLATE CKD) recruitment process.Family practice · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextA well-structured protocol for a clinical trial may be able to answer clinical questions, but it cannot be deemed enough to ensure success in the face of incompetent management of time as well as human and economic resources. To address this problem, in this article, we present our literature review on evidence as to how a good knowledge of proper management among researchers can enhance the likelihood of the success of clinical trial projects. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Using multiple search strategies, we conducted a literature review on published studies in the English language from 2002 to 2012 by searching the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and EMBASE.
resultsOur review suggests that a successful trial requires a work plan or work scope as well as a timeline. The trial manager should subsequently manage the study in accordance with the plan and the timeline. Many research units have called for a clinical project manager with scientific background and regulatory skills to effect coordination among various aspects of a clinical trial.
conclusionsProject management may benefit both the managerial and scientific aspects of medical projects and reduce fund waste. However, little has been written to date on project management in the context of clinical research. The suggestions represent the views of the individual authors. To provide a high level of evidence in this regard, we recommend that a randomized controlled trial be performed to compare trial projects progressed with and without the use of project management.
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.