ArticleTrials2025
Audit experiences in investigational medicinal product management and errors in clinical trials.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinical audits are essential to ensure that clinical research processes align with regulatory standards and best practices. Despite this, there has been no error assessment of the relationship between the errors in investigational medicinal product (IMP) management and clinical trial workers with audit experience.
methodsThis study surveyed stakeholders with experience being audited to evaluate errors in IMP management and accountability during clinical trials through online survey system. The survey focused on errors in IMP export, dosing, storage, shipping, and labeling. Errors related to IMP management or accountability were evaluated with 22 specific criteria. Analysis included descriptive statistics and Pearson's correlation.
resultsA total of 41 participants experiencing audits in clinical trial were enrolled in the current survey. The survey results revealed that the most frequent errors occurred in missing essential documents for shipment during IMP shipping and errors in label information, each accounting for 24 cases (58%). Additionally, a significant correlation was found between participants' age, work experience, and audit experience (coefficient = 0.77, p value < 0.05).
conclusionA survey of individuals with auditing experience identified common errors in IMP management, particularly missing shipment documents and incorrect labeling. To address these issues, clinical trial systems should implement regular error monitoring, standardized procedures, and comprehensive staff training to ensure safer and more efficient trials.
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.