Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32617432›Full record

ArticleContemporary clinical trials communications2020

Clinical Investigator Training Program (CITP) - A practical and pragmatic approach to conveying clinical investigator competencies and training to busy clinicians.

Mansoor Saleh, Gurudatta Naik, Penelope Jester, Cynthia Joiner, Elizabeth Westfall, David W Kimberlin, James Willig, David Redden, Juliette Southworth, Mark T Dransfield

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Contemporary clinical trials communications, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. The development, validity, and reliability of the Researcher Investment Tool.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2025
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mansoor SalehUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham, O'Neal Comprehensive Cancer Center, United States.
Gurudatta NaikUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham, O'Neal Comprehensive Cancer Center, United States.
Penelope JesterUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham, Department of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases, United States.
Cynthia JoinerUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham, Department of Medicine, United States.
Elizabeth WestfallUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham, Department of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary, Allergy and Critical Care, United States.
David W KimberlinUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham, Department of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases, United States.
James WilligUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham, Department of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, United States.
David ReddenUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham, School of Public Health, Department of Biostatistics, United States.
Juliette SouthworthUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham, Department of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases, United States.
Mark T DransfieldUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham, Department of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary, Allergy and Critical Care, United States.
University of Alabama at Birmingham · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionClinical investigation is a critical component of clinical medicine. Yet, other than mentorship by an experienced senior physician, young physicians have few formal training opportunities that fit into their clinical training and convey the pre-requisite clinical investigator competencies. To address this training gap, we designed the Clinical Investigator Training Program (CITP); a practical and pragmatic curriculum weaved into the constant pressures of balancing patient care with academic pursuit required of the academic practitioner.

methodsBetween January 2016 and December 2018, we conducted four CITP courses, with each comprised of four 4-h sessions that included didactic lectures, group projects including the development of a mock clinical protocol, and expert's panel discussions. Each course enrolled 15 participants from an average of 28 applicants. We assessed the knowledge acquired following each course via a pre- and post-course test (

resultsA total of 60 participants enrolled in the 4 CITP courses, and there was a statistically significant improvement in mean post-test scores (p < 0.01). The number of participants achieving first time principal investigator status nearly doubled following CITP from 17 to 33. Conversely, applicants not selected for CITP demonstrated no similar improvement during the same follow up period.

conclusionThe improvement in test scores and the substantive uptake in first time principal investigator responsibilities following CITP affirms that CITP provides a viable option to convey investigator competencies and encourage clinicians to take on the role of principal investigators.

Indexed as

AcademicClinical investigationOutcomeTraining program

Identifiers

PMID32617432
PMCPMC7322677
OpenAlexW3034788804

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.