ArticleBJR open2024
Clinical Trials Radiographers identifying priority challenges associated with implementing a national programme of clinical trials in the United Kingdom's first proton beam therapy centre.
Article in BJR open, 2024. 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.
- The impact of Clinical Trials Radiographers on set-up and recruitment to radiotherapy trials.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This article is an evaluation of the current trial processes within a national proton beam therapy (PBT) clinical trial service in the United Kingdom. The work within the article identifies priority challenges associated with the implementation of PBT trials with a view to improving patient trial processes. Methods: The nominal group technique (NGT) was used. Five Clinical Trials Radiographers were asked the target question "what are the major challenges when implementing PBT clinical trials and facilitating PBT trial-related activities?" Participants individually and silently listed their challenges to the target question. Following this, group discussion clarified and refined responses. Participants then individually selected five challenges that they deemed most pertinent to the target question, giving a weighted score (out of 10). Individual scores were combined to provide a ranked, weighted order of challenges. Further group discussion identified improvement strategies to the highest scored challenges. Results: After combining lists generated by participants, 59 challenges were identified. Group discussion eliminated 27 responses. Eighteen were merged, resulting in 14 challenges. The two challenges that ranked highest were: (i) lack of initial understanding of the responsibilities of teams and who the relevant stakeholders were, and (ii) that a national PBT service requires the provision of shared care across multi-disciplinary teams and sites. Improvement areas include the development of shared protocols, clarifying stakeholder responsibilities and improving communication between centres to streamline PBT trial processes. Conclusions: This work has identified priority areas requiring development to improve the conduct of a national PBT clinical trials programme. Advances in knowledge: This is the first publication to evaluate current clinical trial processes for the United Kingdom's PBT service.
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.