ArticleClinical and translational science2023
A cross-sectional survey on principal investigators' clinical research knowledge in Japan.
Article in Clinical and translational science, 2023. 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.
- Physicians' Knowledge, Attitudes, and Barriers Toward Clinical Trial Participation in Türkiye: A Cross-Sectional Survey and Implications for Oncology Research Capacity.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2026Article
- A cross-sectional survey on principal investigators' clinical research knowledge in Japan.Clinical and translational science · 2023Article
- Understanding International Differences in Academic Author Order in General Medicine Publications.Juntendo Iji zasshi = Juntendo medical journal · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Principal investigators (PIs) play a key role in clinical research, and must thus understand the role of clinical research support staff to conduct successful and appropriate clinical research. This study evaluates clinical research capabilities by examining the clinical research knowledge of PIs and clinical research support staff. The participants of this cross-sectional study were academic researchers and clinical research support staff from Japanese universities and research institutions. The participants comprised of 54 respondents, among whom 36 were PIs (physicians) and 18 were clinical research support staff. A self-administered electronic survey was created and evaluated by experts, with 50 knowledge items. Mann-Whitney U tests were used to determine the significance of the differences in knowledge between clinical research support staff and PIs. We compared the correct answer rate of clinical research support staff and PIs for each knowledge category and observed that the clinical research support staff scored significantly higher than the PIs in all aspects of clinical research knowledge sections, including total score. Our findings showed that PIs did not have the same amount of clinical research knowledge as the clinical research support staff. Clinical research knowledge is essential for investigators, especially PIs, to protect patients and promote medical breakthroughs. Thus, more accessible clinical research education and mandatory knowledge testing will allow PIs to lead successful clinical research and further the level of medical research in Japan.
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.