ArticleBMJ open2017
Improving site selection in clinical studies: a standardised, objective, multistep method and first experience results.
Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02297581 (A Prospective Multicenter Cohort Study to Evaluate the Benefit of the Geriatric Fracture Center), which is not on this map. Cited by 22 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.
A Prospective Multicenter Cohort Study to Evaluate the Benefit of the Geriatric Fracture Center (GFC) Concept
Who cites it
22 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Trial
- Article
- Utilization of a structured research site mentorship model to facilitate site performance in a clinical research network.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2025Article
- Selecting trial centers using a standardized, automated site assessment survey instrument (SASI).Contemporary clinical trials · 2024Article
- Redefining feasibility in clinical trials: Collaborative approaches for improved site selection.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2024Article
- Operational Differences between Product Development Partnership, Pharmaceutical Industry, and Investigator Initiated Clinical Trials.Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2024Article
- Enhancing site selection strategies in clinical trial recruitment using real-world data modeling.PloS one · 2024Article
- Respiratory support of adults in the emergency department: A protocol for a prospective, observational, multicenter point prevalence study.Health science reports · 2023Article
- Translational research: from basic research to regional biomedical entrepreneurship.Small business economics · 2023Article
- Clinical trial site identification practices and the use of electronic health records in feasibility evaluations: An interview study in the Nordic countries.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2021Article
- Development of a Good Clinical Practice inspection checklist to assess clinical trial sites in Vietnam.BMJ open · 2021Review
- Does study subject diversity influence cardiology research site performance?: Insights from 2 U.S. National Coronary Stent Registries.American heart journal · 2021Observational
- Article
- Drivers of Start-Up Delays in Global Randomized Clinical Trials.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2021Article
- A systematic scorecard-based approach to site assessment in preparation for Lassa fever vaccine clinical trials in affected countries.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2020Article
- Article
- Optimizing clinical trials recruitment via deep learning.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2019Article
- Designing tuberculosis vaccine efficacy trials - lessons from recent studies.Expert review of vaccines · 2019Article
- 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionA considerable number of clinical studies experience delays, which result in increased duration and costs. In multicentre studies, patient recruitment is among the leading causes of delays. Poor site selection can result in low recruitment and bad data quality. Site selection is therefore crucial for study quality and completion, but currently no specific guidelines are available. MATERIAL AND
methodsSelection of sites adequate to participate in a prospective multicentre cohort study was performed through an open call using a newly developed objective multistep approach. The method is based on use of a network, definition of objective criteria and a systematic screening process. ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE OF THE METHOD AT WORK: Out of 266 interested sites, 24 were shortlisted and finally 12 sites were selected to participate in the study. The steps in the process included an open call through a network, use of selection questionnaires tailored to the study, evaluation of responses using objective criteria and scripted telephone interviews. At each step, the number of candidate sites was quickly reduced leaving only the most promising candidates. Recruitment and quality of data went according to expectations in spite of the contracting problems faced with some sites.
conclusionThe results of our first experience with a standardised and objective method of site selection are encouraging. The site selection method described here can serve as a guideline for other researchers performing multicentre studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02297581.
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.