ArticleDer Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft2019
[Work sampling in ophthalmological clinical studies. A multicenter field study].
Article in Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Networking of Eye Hospitals on a National Level for Promoting and Advancing Conduct of Clinical Trials.Ophthalmologica. Journal international d'ophtalmologie. International journal of ophthalmology. Zeitschrift fur Augenheilkunde · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWork in clinical studies is generally more elaborate and therefore more time-consuming in comparison to the clinical routine. The purpose of this study was to systematically investigate the time consumption in the German ophthalmological clinical trial centers.
methodsThe members of the working group of the German Ophthalmology Society clinical study centers (Arbeitsgemeinschaft DOG Klinische Studienzentren) were asked to fill in three questionnaires about best estimations for the time spent on study-related procedures and administration. Additionally, work sampling was performed for each employee at each study center over a period of 3 weeks.
resultsThe questionnaires were completed by 9 of the 11 centers. Overall, 5504 working hours were recorded. On an average working day, the time spent for both documentation and administration averaged 4 h each. Operative interventions consumed a significant amount of time (2.8 h), as did ophthalmological examinations (2.5 h) and obtaining informed consent (1.5 h). The recorded time consumption for visual acuity testing, informed consent and documentation was well aligned with the best estimates of the three questionnaires. By contrast, interventions, ophthalmological examinations and biomaterial sample handling were underrated in the best estimations. DISCUSSION: A considerable amount of time in clinical studies is spent on documentation and administration. From work sampling, ophthalmological examinations and biomaterial sampling turned out to be surprisingly time consuming. This is probably due to preparation and postprocessing tasks. It is important to consider this when calculating the overall costs of a clinical study. In addition, many administrative activities cannot be attributed to specific patients and can therefore not be compensated on the basis of case payments alone. Additional remuneration is required to fully cover the costs in an ophthalmological study center.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30684005What 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.