ArticleClinical and translational science2021
Performance Index for Types of Clinical Research Support Service Providers for Academic Research Organizations in Japan: A Cross-Sectional Survey.
Article in Clinical and translational science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Principal investigators' experience of COVID-19 therapeutic clinical trials in Japan: a qualitative study.BMJ open · 2025Article
- A cross-sectional survey on principal investigators' clinical research knowledge in Japan.Clinical and translational science · 2023Article
- Clinical Research Support Activities in Core Clinical Research Hospitals Throughout Japan.Juntendo Iji zasshi = Juntendo medical journal · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to conduct a factual survey to evaluate the type of clinical research support offered by service providers (supporters) in Japanese academic research organizations (AROs). From September to October 2018, we conducted an online questionnaire targeting researchers and supporters of AROs, including individuals supporting research and development (R&D) planning, as well as those involved in study management, biostatistics, coordination, data management, monitoring, and auditing. The number of responses was tabulated for each survey item. For items with written descriptions, we compiled summaries using the inductive regression method of qualitative research. Responses were obtained from 124 researchers, 258 supporters, and 40 AROs. None of the institutions responded that they had a performance index for all types of service providers, whereas 47% of institutions had an index for 1-3 types of service providers, and 40% of institutions had no index. Many institutions responded that they had a performance index for coordinators and data management, but few responded that there was a performance index for individuals engaged in R&D and study management. Furthermore, for all evaluations of AROs and researchers, the level of supporter satisfaction was low at only 20%. There was a discrepancy between the levels of researcher expectations and the actual contribution of R&D in the process of research planning. Our survey revealed that there is currently no performance index for services supporting clinical research. In future studies, we need to examine a performance index that accurately reflects the researcher attitudes revealed in this study.
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.