ArticleTrials2025
Developing a knowledge transfer and exchange strategy for a clinical trials unit.
Article in Trials, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
need for a strategic approach to knowledge transfer and exchangeLate-phase clinical trials and systematic reviews find results that have the potential to improve health outcomes for people. However, there are often delays in these results influencing clinical practice. We developed a knowledge transfer and exchange strategy to support research teams, aiming to identify activities along the research process to maximise and accelerate the research impact. OUR KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER AND EXCHANGE STRATEGY: The strategy has five strands of activity across the life-course of our research: 1. Partnerships with external stakeholders (including patient and public involvement, charities, policymakers, healthcare professionals, professional bodies, regulators and industry) 2. Communication (including the development of research impact strategies and use of communication tools and channels) 3. Maximising the scientific value of our studies (including open access, data and sample sharing, and incorporating multi-disciplinary components within studies) 4. Strengthening capacity (including building internal and partner capacity to communicate effectively, and strengthening the capacity of external stakeholders to understand and apply our research). 5. Learning and sharing (evaluating the impact of research, sharing lessons learnt internally and externally) The strategy has helped trial teams think systematically about impact and was easy to use.
conclusionsOur strategy helps researchers systematically identify activities which may improve the usefulness and uptake of their study results. While developed in a single trials unit, we think it may be of use to others.
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.