Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34297072›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2021

Assessment of North American Clinical Research Site Performance During the Start-up of Large Cardiovascular Clinical Trials.

Akash Goyal, Tony Schibler, Brooke Alhanti, Karen L Hannan, Christopher B Granger, Michael A Blazing, Renato D Lopes, John H Alexander, Eric D Peterson, Sunil V Rao and 11 more

Abstract readEvaluation StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

21 authors.

Akash GoyalThe Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Columbus.
Tony SchiblerDuke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.
Brooke AlhantiDuke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.
Karen L HannanDuke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.
Christopher B GrangerDuke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.
Michael A BlazingDuke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.
Renato D LopesDuke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.
John H AlexanderDuke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.
Eric D PetersonDuke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.
Sunil V RaoDuke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.
Jennifer B GreenDuke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.
Matthew T RoeVerana Health, San Francisco, California.
Tyrus RorickDuke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.
Lisa G BerdanDuke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.
Craig Reist2M Clinical, Arlington, Texas.
Kenneth W MahaffeyStanford Center for Clinical Research, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Robert A HarringtonStanford Center for Clinical Research, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Robert M CaliffVerily Life Sciences and Google Health, San Francisco, California.
Manesh R PatelDuke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.
Adrian F HernandezDuke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.
W Schuyler JonesDuke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are critical in advancing patient care, yet conducting such large-scale trials requires tremendous resources and coordination. Clinical site start-up performance metrics can provide insight into opportunities for improved trial efficiency but have not been well described. Objective: To measure the start-up time needed to reach prespecified milestones across sites in large cardiovascular RCTs in North America and to evaluate how these metrics vary by time and type of regulatory review process. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study evaluated cardiovascular RCTs conducted from July 13, 2004, to February 1, 2017. The RCTs were coordinated by a single academic research organization, the Duke Clinical Research Institute. Nine consecutive trials with completed enrollment and publication of results in their target journal were studied. Data were analyzed from December 4, 2019, to January 11, 2021. Exposures: Year of trial enrollment initiation (2004-2007 vs 2008-2012) and use of a central vs local institutional review board (IRB). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the median start-up time (from study protocol delivery to first participant enrollment) as compared by trial year and type of IRB used. The median start-up time for the top 10% of sites was also reported. Secondary outcomes included time to site regulatory approval, time to contract execution, and time to site activation. Results: For the 9 RCTs included, the median site start-up time shortened only slightly over time from 267 days (interquartile range [IQR], 185-358 days) for 2004-2007 trials to 237 days (IQR, 162-343 days) for 2008-2012 trials (overall median, 255 days [IQR, 177-350 days]; P < .001). For the top 10% of sites, median start-up time was 107 days (IQR, 95-121 days) for 2004-2007 trials vs 104 days (IQR, 84-118 days) for 2008-2012 trials (overall median, 106 days [IQR, 90-120 days]; P = .04). The median start-up time was shorter among sites using a central IRB (199 days [IQR, 140-292 days]) than those using a local IRB (287 days [IQR, 205-390 days]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study of North American research sites in large cardiovascular RCTs found a duration of nearly 9 months from the time of study protocol delivery to the first participant enrollment; this metric was only slightly shortened during the study period but was reduced to less than 4 months for top-performing sites. These findings suggest that the use of central IRBs has the potential to improve RCT efficiency.

Indexed as

Time FactorsAcademies and InstitutesBenchmarkingCardiovascular DiseasesCohort StudiesHumansNorth AmericaRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicReference Standards

Identifiers

PMID34297072
PMCPMC9435961

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.