ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2025
Assessment of competencies of clinical research professionals and proposals to improve clinical research in Portugal.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2025. 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.
- Development and Exploratory Validation of the Clinical Research Nursing Competencies-Self-Efficacy Scale.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Assessing the Impact of Comprehensive Genomic Profiling on Therapeutic Selection for Advanced Solid Tumors in Portugal.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Article
- Beyond GCP: developing a differentiated competency framework for principal investigators in innovative drug clinical trials in China.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Toward an Effective Healthcare Workforce through Evidence-based Strategies.Acta medica Philippina · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
34 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Clinical studies are coordinated by multidisciplinary teams, which often lack adequate training and competencies. In this study, ROCHE and AICIB (Agency for Clinical Research and Biomedical Innovation) conducted a self-assessment survey aiming to evaluate the competency of clinical research professionals to conduct clinical research in Portugal and promote the identification of key actions to address priority gaps. Methods: Clinical research professionals from 10 Portuguese centres answered an electronic survey, adapted and translated from the Joint Task Force for Clinical Trial Competency (JTFCTC) framework. Representatives of the centres, ROCHE and AICIB held a meeting to discuss the survey results, identify priority gaps and propose recommendations. Results: A total of 109 participants answered the questionnaire with the following national geographical distribution: North ( Conclusion: This study was the first to assess clinical trial competency in Portugal, registering a high participation rate. The study highlights the need to develop a national plan of action, in a collaborative effort, between clinical research centres, universities, industry, regulatory authorities, national agencies, and patient organizations. This will not only contribute to elevate the quality of studies but also improve compliance with international standards, ultimately benefiting both researchers and patients.
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.