ArticleContemporary clinical trials communications2022
Bolstering the complex study start-up process at NCI cancer centers using technology.
Article in Contemporary clinical trials communications, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating the impact of delayed study startup on accrual in cancer studies.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The study startup process for interventional clinical trials is a complex process that involves the efforts of many different teams. Each team is responsible for their startup checklist in which they verify that the necessary tasks are done before a study can move on to the next team. This regulatory process provides quality assurance and is vital for ensuring patient safety [10]. However, without having this startup process centralized and optimized, study approval can take longer than necessary as time is lost when it passes through many different hands. Objective: This manuscript highlights the process and the systems that were developed at The University of Kansas Comprehensive Cancer Center regarding the study startup process. To facilitate this process the regulatory management, site development, cancer center administration, and the Biostatistics & Informatics Shared Resources (BISR) teams came together to build a platform aimed at streamlining the startup process and providing a transparent view of where a study is in the startup process. Process: Ensuring the guidelines are clearly articulated for the review criteria of each of the three review boards, i.e., Disease Working Group (DWG), Executive Resourcing Committee (ERC), and Protocol Review and Monitoring Committee (PRMC) along with a system that can track every step and its history throughout the review process. Results: Well-defined processes and tracking methodologies have allowed the operations teams to track each study closely and ensure the 90-day and 120-day deadlines are met, this allows the operational team to dynamically prioritize their work daily. It also provides Principal investigators a transparent view of where their study stands within the study startup process and allows them to prepare for the next steps accordingly. Conclusion/future work: The current process and technology deployment has been a significant improvement to expedite the review process and minimize study startup delays. There are still a few opportunities to fine-tune the study startup process; an example of which includes automatically informing the operational managers or the study teams to act upon deadlines regarding study review rather than the current manual communication process which involves them looking it up in the system which can add delays.
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.