Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39088463›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Strengthening research networks: Insights from a clinical research network in Brazil.

Juliana Freitas Lopes, Arnaldo Cézar Couto, André Daher, Bruna de Paula Fonseca

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. AI Nurses Network: The Importance of Clinical Research Networks in Nursing.Journal of nursing scholarship : an official publication of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Juliana Freitas LopesCenter for Technological Development in Health (CDTS), Oswaldo Cruz Foundation (Fiocruz), Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.
Arnaldo Cézar CoutoVice Presidency of Research and Biological Collections (VPPCB), Oswaldo Cruz Foundation (Fiocruz), Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.
André DaherVice Presidency of Research and Biological Collections (VPPCB), Oswaldo Cruz Foundation (Fiocruz), Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-9747-0222
Bruna de Paula FonsecaCenter for Technological Development in Health (CDTS), Oswaldo Cruz Foundation (Fiocruz), Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-8795-2578

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical Research Networks (CRNs) are means to improve healthcare delivery, quality of care and patient outcomes. The Oswaldo Cruz Foundation (Fiocruz), Latin America's leading health research organization, has established a CRN to promote interaction and collaboration among its clinical research experts. After a decade of operation, a revitalization process was undertaken out of the need to improve its functionality. This study aimed to describe the evaluation process of the Fiocruz Clinical Research Network (RFPC) by gathering the opinions and perspectives of its members and identifying the network structure. The goal was to improve scientific collaboration and member engagement, thereby increasing the integration, effectiveness, and impact of clinical research conducted at the institution. Clinical research professionals at Fiocruz were invited to participate in an online questionnaire to collect information about their professional experience, the benefits and constraints of participating in research networks, relevant discussion topics, and the challenges of complying with Good Clinical Practices (GCP). With the help of social network analysis, a deeper understanding of the dynamics and structure of professional communication networks was obtained. The questionnaire was completed by 122 professionals (response rate 50.4%), with most respondents being principal investigators (PIs) with more than 10 years of professional experience (24.6%). Participation in research networks was considered beneficial, particularly in working groups (48.4%), and as an opportunity to exchange experiences with other professionals (44.3%). Almost half of the participants (48.4%) did not identify any barriers to participating in a network. Topics that required further discussion included data management, biorepositories and biobanks, and ethical and regulatory issues. Challenges to conducting clinical research with GCP standards included strategic support and funding, staffing and training, data management, infrastructure, quality management, and collaboration. Communication within the research network was loosely structured, with the most experienced professionals holding central positions. This analysis provided valuable insights to support the management of the RFPC. It highlighted the internal community's interests and expectations, identified key areas for improvement in GCP implementation, and influential professionals who could improve information sharing and national integration. The findings have far-reaching implications that can be applied in different contexts. They contribute to the ongoing discussion on the establishment and management of research networks.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchAdultBrazilFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedResearch PersonnelSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID39088463
PMCPMC11293707

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.