ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2024
Expert advice from ResearchMatch volunteers: Recruitment Innovation Center use cases and innovation.
Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Community consultation and public disclosure for the Randomized Trial of Sedative Choice for Intubation.Trials · 2026Article
- Outcomes from a Novel Approach to Studying Consumer Genetic Testing for Germline Cancer and Cardiovascular Risk.American journal of medical genetics. Part A · 2025Article
- Community Consultation and Public Disclosure for the Randomized Trial of Sedative Choice for Intubation.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Insights from the trial innovation network's initial consultation process.Journal of clinical and translational science · 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Involving participants in the design of clinical trials should improve the overall success of a study. For this to occur, streamlined mechanisms are needed to connect the populations potentially impacted by a given study or health topic with research teams in order to inform trial design in a meaningful and timely manner. To address this need, we developed an innovative mechanism called the "ResearchMatch Expert Advice Tool" that quickly obtains volunteer perspectives from populations with specific health conditions or lived experiences using the national recruitment registry, ResearchMatch. This tool does not ask volunteers to participate in the trial but allows for wider community feedback to be gathered and translated into actionable recommendations used to inform the study's design. We describe early use cases that shaped the current Expert Advice Tool workflow, how results from this tool were incorporated and implemented by studies, and feedback from volunteers and study teams regarding the tool's usefulness. Additionally, we present a set of lessons learned during the development of the Expert Advice Tool that can be used by other recruitment registries seeking to obtain volunteer feedback on study design and operations.
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.