Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29740639›Full record

ArticleContemporary clinical trials communications2017

A cross-cutting approach to enhancing clinical trial site success: The Department of Veterans Affairs' Network of Dedicated Enrollment Sites (NODES) model.

Debra L Condon, Danielle Beck, Tawni Kenworthy-Heinige, Karen Bratcher, Meghan O'Leary, Aliya Asghar, Cyenthia Willis, Marcus R Johnson, Grant D Huang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Contemporary clinical trials communications, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. The VA Research Enterprise: A Platform for National Partnerships Toward Evidence Building and Scientific Innovation.Federal practitioner : for the health care professionals of the VA, DoD, and PHS · 2023
    Article
  7. VA Lessons From Partnering in COVID-19 Clinical Trials.Federal practitioner : for the health care professionals of the VA, DoD, and PHS · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Leveraging Veterans Health Administration Clinical and Research Resources to Accelerate Discovery and Testing in Precision Oncology.Federal practitioner : for the health care professionals of the VA, DoD, and PHS · 2020
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Research site mentoring: A novel approach to improving study recruitment.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2018
    Article
  16. 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.

Debra L CondonMinneapolis VA Health Care System, USA.
Danielle BeckVA San Diego Healthcare System, USA.
Tawni Kenworthy-HeinigeVA Portland Health Care System, USA.
Karen BratcherVA Palo Alto Health Care System, USA.
Meghan O'LearyDurham VA Healthcare System, USA.
Aliya AsgharVA Long Beach Healthcare System, USA.
Cyenthia WillisVA North Texas Health Care System, USA.
Marcus R JohnsonDurham VA Healthcare System, USA.
Grant D HuangCooperative Studies Program Central Office, VA Office of Research and Development, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecruitment into clinical trials remains a key determinant to study completion and success. While various strategies have been proposed, it is unclear how they apply across different populations, diseases, and/or study goals. The ability to effectively overcome challenges may require different approaches that more broadly focus on addressing obstacles among sites that cannot be overcome by individual studies.

methodsThe Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Cooperative Studies Program (CSP) established the Network of Dedicated Enrollment Sites (NODES) as a consortium of sites to generate systematic site-level solutions to more efficiently recruit in CSP studies. Initial activities identified priorities and developed approaches through team-based efforts. Metrics were also developed to assess overall network performance.

resultsNetwork efforts produced several new strategies and best practices for common problems in CSP research. Recruitment strategies included bringing studies to patients and developing data programs using algorithms for finding eligible patients. Efficiency efforts focused on cross-training and standardizing performance reports.

conclusionNODES addressed site challenges in clinical trial recruitment and management by taking an overall approach that looked at the system rather than individual studies. Practices and operational changes were implemented for CSP research related to recruitment, staff training and research methodology. The network activities suggest that team-based development of tools and insights may help better identify targets and increase efficiencies for clinical trials recruitment.

Indexed as

Clinical trialsNetworkRecruitmentSitesVeterans

Identifiers

PMID29740639
PMCPMC5936861

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.