Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32442156›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical informatics2020

Applied Practice and Possible Leverage Points for Information Technology Support for Patient Screening in Clinical Trials: Qualitative Study.

Linda Becker, Thomas Ganslandt, Hans-Ulrich Prokosch, Axel Newe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

4 authors.

Linda BeckerChair of Health Psychology, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9950-6882
Thomas GanslandtDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Heinrich-Lanz-Zentrum, Mannheim, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6864-8936
Hans-Ulrich ProkoschChair of Medical Informatics, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6200-753X
Axel NeweChair of Medical Informatics, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0843-2900

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical trials are one of the most challenging and meaningful designs in medical research. One essential step before starting a clinical trial is screening, that is, to identify patients who fulfill the inclusion criteria and do not fulfill the exclusion criteria. The screening step for clinical trials might be supported by modern information technology (IT).

objectiveThis explorative study aimed (1) to obtain insights into which tools for feasibility estimations and patient screening are actually used in clinical routine and (2) to determine which method and type of IT support could benefit clinical staff.

methodsSemistandardized interviews were conducted in 5 wards (cardiology, gynecology, gastroenterology, nephrology, and palliative care) in a German university hospital. Of the 5 interviewees, 4 were directly involved in patient screening. Three of them were clinicians, 1 was a study nurse, and 1 was a research assistant.

resultsThe existing state of study feasibility estimation and the screening procedure were dominated by human communication and estimations from memory, although there were many possibilities for IT support. Success mostly depended on the experience and personal motivation of the clinical staff. Electronic support has been used but with little importance so far. Searches in ward-specific patient registers (databases) and searches in clinical information systems were reported. Furthermore, free-text searches in medical reports were mentioned. For potential future applications, a preference for either proactive or passive systems was not expressed. Most of the interviewees saw the potential for the improvement of the actual systems, but they were also largely satisfied with the outcomes of the current approach. Most of the interviewees were interested in learning more about the various ways in which IT could support and relieve them in their clinical routine.

conclusionsOverall, IT support currently plays a minor role in the screening step for clinical trials. The lack of IT usage and the estimations made from memory reported by all the participants might constrain cognitive resources, which might distract from clinical routine. We conclude that electronic support for the screening step for clinical trials is still a challenge and that education of the staff about the possibilities for electronic support in clinical trials is necessary.

Indexed as

clinical information systemsclinical trialelectronic supportexclusion criteriafeasibility studiesinclusion criteriamobile phonepatient screening

Identifiers

PMID32442156
PMCPMC7327588

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.