ArticleJournal of primary care & community health
Challenges in Use of Practice-based Research Networks for a Medical Device Trial to Detect SARS-CoV-2.
Article in Journal of primary care & community health. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Use of qualitative and mixed methods research in diagnostic technology evaluation and implementation: insights from a systematic review.Diagnostic and prognostic research · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
INTRODUCTION/
objectivesPrimary care practice-based research networks (PBRNs) participated in a point of care (POC) device study funded by by the National Institutes of Health and led by the University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School (UMass) to speed the development, validation, and commercialization of POC tests to detect SARS-CoV-2. The purposes of this study were to describe the characteristics of participating PBRNs and their respective collaborators in this device trial and describe complications challenging its execution.
methodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with lead personnel from participating PBRNs and UMass.
resultsFour PBRNs and UMass were invited to participate and 3 PBRNs and UMass participated. This device trial recruited 321 subjects in 6 months; 65 subjects from PBRNs. Each PBRN and the academic medical center site enrolled and recruited subjects differently. Main challenges identified were having adequate clinic personnel to enroll and aid in consent and questionnaire completion, frequently changing inclusion/exclusion criteria, use of the digital electronic data collection platform, and having access to a -80°C freezer to store supplies. DISCUSSION: This trial involved numerous researchers, primary care clinic leaders and staff, and academic center sponsored program staff and attorneys resulting in a resource-intensive endeavor to enroll 65 subjects in the real-world clinical setting of primary care PBRNs with the academic medical center enrolling the rest. Multiple obstacles to standing up the study were encountered by the PBRNS.
conclusionsPrimary care PBRNs rely largely on the goodwill established between academic health centers and participating practices. For future investigations involving device studies, collaborating PBRN leaders should assess whether recruitment criteria may change, obtain detailed lists of equipment needed, and/or know if the study is likely to be halted suddenly to appropriately prepare their member practices.
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.