ArticleScientific reports2024
Enhancing translational medical research through proof-of-concept services: clinicians' perspectives.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Although the proof-of-concept (POC) phase is critical for the success of translational medical research (TMR), its use remains limited, and clinicians are frequently uncertain about how to seek assistance from POC teams when experiencing difficulties with TMR. Therefore, this study explored clinicians' awareness of POC and the supportive reference services offered by POC teams. We distributed an internet-based questionnaire to 702 clinicians who conducted TMR between August 2022 and March 2023. Descriptive statistics, chi-square test, Wilcoxon rank sum test, Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test, and stepwise logistic regression analysis were applied. Clinicians' awareness of POC was low (69.23%). However, young clinicians (aged 21-30 years) with a higher educational level than their colleagues, good understanding of POC, reliance on the hospital's TMR policy and serviceability, and need or great need for services to identify suitable technology, literature, and intelligence services were likely to choose 'agree' over 'disagree' regarding the ability for POC services to help solve difficulties with TMR. Favourable conditions should be created to encourage clinicians to fully use POC services, and clinicians should actively acquire POC knowledge to enhance their understanding of the value of POC services in TMR. Notably, promoting the establishment of POC centres or platforms at the national level would facilitate the use of POC services by clinicians conducting TMR.
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.