Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26907923›Full record

ArticleTrials2016

Activating clinical trials: a process improvement approach.

Diego A Martinez, Athanasios Tsalatsanis, Ali Yalcin, José L Zayas-Castro, Benjamin Djulbegovic

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Clinical research in private hospitals: a perspective.Journal of translational medicine · 2026
    Review
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. The Role of Value Stream Mapping in Healthcare Services: A Scoping Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  8. Personas for the translational workforce.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2020
    Article
  9. Review
  10. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Diego A MartinezDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, 5801 Smith Avenue Baltimore, Baltimore, 21209, MD, USA. dmart101@jhmi.edu.
Athanasios TsalatsanisUSF Health Program for Comparative Effectiveness Research, Department of Internal Medicine, University of South Florida, 12901 Bruce B. Downs Blvd., MDC 27, Tampa, FL, 33612, USA. atsalats@health.usf.edu.
Ali YalcinDepartment of Industrial and Management Systems Engineering, University of South Florida, 4202 East Fowler Avenue, Tampa, 3360, FL, USA. ayalcin@usf.edu.
José L Zayas-CastroDepartment of Industrial and Management Systems Engineering, University of South Florida, 4202 East Fowler Avenue, Tampa, 3360, FL, USA. josezaya@usf.edu.
Benjamin DjulbegovicUSF Health Program for Comparative Effectiveness Research, Department of Internal Medicine, University of South Florida, 12901 Bruce B. Downs Blvd., MDC 27, Tampa, FL, 33612, USA. bdjulbeg@heatlh.usf.edu.
University of South Florida · USJohns Hopkins University · USMoffitt Cancer Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe administrative process associated with clinical trial activation has been criticized as costly, complex, and time-consuming. Prior research has concentrated on identifying administrative barriers and proposing various solutions to reduce activation time, and consequently associated costs. Here, we expand on previous research by incorporating social network analysis and discrete-event simulation to support process improvement decision-making.

methodsWe searched for all operational data associated with the administrative process of activating industry-sponsored clinical trials at the Office of Clinical Research of the University of South Florida in Tampa, Florida. We limited the search to those trials initiated and activated between July 2011 and June 2012. We described the process using value stream mapping, studied the interactions of the various process participants using social network analysis, and modeled potential process modifications using discrete-event simulation.

resultsThe administrative process comprised 5 sub-processes, 30 activities, 11 decision points, 5 loops, and 8 participants. The mean activation time was 76.6 days. Rate-limiting sub-processes were those of contract and budget development. Key participants during contract and budget development were the Office of Clinical Research, sponsors, and the principal investigator. Simulation results indicate that slight increments on the number of trials, arriving to the Office of Clinical Research, would increase activation time by 11 %. Also, incrementing the efficiency of contract and budget development would reduce the activation time by 28 %. Finally, better synchronization between contract and budget development would reduce time spent on batching documentation; however, no improvements would be attained in total activation time.

conclusionThe presented process improvement analytic framework not only identifies administrative barriers, but also helps to devise and evaluate potential improvement scenarios. The strength of our framework lies in its system analysis approach that recognizes the stochastic duration of the activation process and the interdependence between process activities and entities.

Indexed as

Models, OrganizationalResearch DesignWorkflowBudgetsClinical Trials as TopicComputer SimulationDecision MakingHumansInterdisciplinary CommunicationQuality ImprovementResearch PersonnelResearch Support as TopicSocial EnvironmentSocial NetworkingStochastic ProcessesTime and Motion Studies

Identifiers

PMID26907923
PMCPMC4765218
OpenAlexW2285484843

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.