Trial reportBMC research notes2024
A training protocol compliance of 13% was observed in a research study of clinical research professionals.
Trial report in BMC research notes, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bridging the gap in clinical research training: a qualitative study of postgraduate medical students' perceptions of good clinical practice education.Medical education online · 2026Article
- Mandating Evidence-Based Informed Consent Practices: A Critical Engagement with IRB Leader Focus Group Findings.Ethics & human researchArticle
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.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveWe attempted to conduct a randomized controlled trial of three different informed consent training formats to evaluate their effectiveness. We recruited 503 clinical research professionals, who received $50 for participation. Incidental findings showed unexpectedly low rates of compliance with completing the study training protocols, resulting in insufficient statistical power to test our original hypotheses. In this report, we conducted a secondary analysis of the data in which we characterize and evaluate the observed low compliance. This involved using literature on average reading times, speed-reading times, and video play speeds to calculate the timeframes required to complete the three training formats.
resultsOnly 13% of participants completed the training in a reasonable timeframe. Furthermore, only 46% of participants completed the training in the minimum possible timeframe. These findings lead us to ask whether online research training is effective, since no training can be effective if participants do not actually complete the training. Given extensive requirements for educational training among clinical research professionals, we feel the burden of proof is on training programs to demonstrate that they have positive effects.
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.