ArticleTrials2019
European survey on national training activities in clinical research.
Article in Trials, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Research skills improvement through the ATS MECOR program in China.ATS scholar · 2026Article
- Quality of Drug Clinical Trials in China: A Mixed Methods Research.Journal of evidence-based medicine · 2025Article
- Preference of Chinese clinical researchers to participate in international clinical research training: a cross-sectional study.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Enhancing pragmatic competence in investigator-initiated clinical trials: structure and evaluation of the CONSCIOUS II training programme.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- IdentIRCCS. The description of healthcare professionals employed within IRCCS University Hospital of Bologna.Frontiers in public health · 2025Observational
- Navigating the challenges of clinical trial professionals in the healthcare sector.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Review
- Article
- Paediatric biobanking for health: The ethical, legal, and societal landscape.Frontiers in public health · 2022Review
- European survey on national harmonization in clinical research.Learning health systems · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInvestigator-initiated clinical studies (IITs) are crucial to generate reliable evidence that answers questions of day-to-day clinical practice. Many challenges make IITs a complex endeavour, for example, IITs often need to be multinational in order to recruit a sufficient number of patients. Recent studies highlighted that well-trained study personnel are a major factor to conduct such complex IITs successfully. As of today, however, no overview of the European training activities, requirements and career options for clinical study personnel exists.
methodsTo fill this knowledge gap, a survey was performed in all 11 member and observer countries of the European Clinical Research Infrastructure Network (ECRIN), using a standardised questionnaire. Three rounds of data collection were performed to maximize completeness and comparability of the received answers. The survey aimed to describe the landscape of academic training opportunities, to facilitate the exchange of expertise and experience among countries and to identify new fields of action.
resultsThe survey found that training for Good Clinical Practice (GCP) and investigator training is offered in all but one country. A specific training for study nurses or study coordinators is also either provided or planned in ten out of eleven countries. A majority of countries train in monitoring and clinical pharmacovigilance and offer specific training for principal investigators but only few countries also train operators of clinical research organisations (CRO) or provide training for methodology and quality management systems (QMS). Minimal requirements for study-specific functions cover GCP in ten countries. Only three countries issued no requirements or recommendations regarding the continuous training of study personnel. Yet, only four countries developed a national strategy for training in clinical research and the career options for clinical researchers are still limited in the majority of countries.
conclusionsThere is a substantial and impressive investment in training and education of clinical research in the individual ECRIN countries. But so far, a systematic approach for (top-down) strategic and overarching considerations and cross-network exchange is missing. Exchange of available curricula and sets of core competencies between countries could be a starting point for improving the situation.
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.