SynthesisSystematic reviews2025
Impacts of clinical research units on clinical research - a systematic review of empirical studies.
Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Visual analysis of quality management in Chinese drug clinical trials based on CiteSpace and COOC.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Profiles of research waste in randomized clinical trials comparing de-escalation and escalation strategies for breast cancer treatment.Frontiers in oncology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinical research is essential for evidence-based decision-making in healthcare practice, but its conduct is hindered by various barriers. While previous studies suggest that clinical research units (CRUs) provide critical support and expertise for complex clinical research, their necessity for ensuring high-quality clinical research remains uncertain. The primary objective of this systematic review is to identify, assess, and summarize results of studies that empirically evaluated the impacts of CRUs on clinical research.
methodsWe conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global from inception to July 2024 to identify relevant studies. Study selection, quality evaluation, and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers, with any disagreements resolved through discussion. Data extracted from the included studies were summarized in tables, and the synthesis were guided by a realist review approach.
resultsA total of 11 publications corresponding to 10 studies were included in the review. These studies involved 8 independent CRUs and 2 groups of CRUs. The settings in the CRUs operated were diverse, including general hospitals or medical centres, paediatric hospitals, professional sarcoma group, and others. The CRUs featured varied structures and staff compositions, with services tailored to the specific needs of local research teams, study types, and the availability of other research resources. The reported impacts of CRUs were consistently positive in terms of efficiency, quantity, and quality of clinical research. Following the establishment of the CRUs, the number of clinical research has increased by 5 to 23 annually.
conclusionsThe implementation of CRU enhances the efficiency, quantity, and quality of clinical research through process refinement, methodological support, resource pooling, reduced researcher workload, and adherence to good clinical practice (GCP), thereby ensuring patient safety and data integrity. Future research should include rigorous comparative studies, such as randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing outcomes with and without CRUs, to further validate these findings. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42024575392.
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.