ArticleJournal of translational science2022
Clinical research reactivation during the COVID-19 pandemic: An academic center process and lessons for the future.
Article in Journal of translational science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Clinical research is a central mission of the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus (CU-Anschutz). On March 18, 2020, due to rising COVID-19 rates and personal protective equipment (PPE) shortages, an emergency approval process for critical research essential to the care and safety of patients, including COVID-19 trials, was enacted. All other clinical research studies requiring face-to-face visits were placed on hold to protect participant and staff safety. Methods: A clinical research TaskForce was rapidly assembled, consisting of a cross- section of campus clinical research operations leaders, including affiliate hospitals. This group developed a guidance document and process where the primary prioritization factor was positive therapeutic benefit/risk (Groups 2-5). A REDCap form demarcating items including research visit types and safety plans was designed. A separate Space Plan Committee approval was required to gauge environmental health and safety. Results: A total of 654 protocols were approved over 31 weeks using this process. Group 2 review and approvals occurred within 5 days of campus reactivation, and 65 days after original clinical research hold. Groups 3 through 5 were opened for submission and review in a phased approach. The majority proactively submitted IRB protocol amendments to minimize face-to-face participant/staff contact. There were no cases of COVID-19 outbreak in research participants. Conclusion: Clinical research reactivation was rapidly implemented in a transparent, collaborative, broadly supported, and efficient process of staged reactivation while prioritizing the health and safety of participants and staff at CU-Anschutz. This model is practical and easily generalizable to other medical research campuses.
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.