ArticleBMC medical education2025
Preference of Chinese clinical researchers to participate in international clinical research training: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC medical education, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSystematic and internationally standardized clinical research training has not traditionally been widely accessible. With the growing volume and improving quality of clinical research in China, a pressing question facing Chinese clinical investigators is how to enhance the global impact of their research outputs. This study seeks to examine the needs and preferences of Chinese clinical researchers with respect to international clinical research training.
methodsAn online questionnaire was distributed through the "NEJM Medical Frontiers" WeChat platform. The survey collected data on participants' demographic characteristics, preference to participate in international clinical research, and their training needs and preferences. This study adopted a non-probability sampling approach, primarily utilizing a WeChat public platform to disseminate the questionnaire and invite user participation within a defined time frame. To further expand the sample, a peer referral strategy was employed, whereby participants were encouraged to share the survey with their contacts. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify factors associated with clinical researchers' preferences for international training.
resultsBetween January 11 and February 7, 2023, 324 questionnaires were completed, of which 312 were valid(physicians (66.7%, n = 208), with the remainder from universities, research institutes, or pharmaceutical-related companies (33.3%, n = 104)). Overall, 247 respondents (78.9%) expressed interest in international clinical research training. Those with a doctoral degree and first-author experience in Science Citation Index (SCI) publications (68.4%, n = 121, P = 0.040), particularly those with 1-9 publications (72.2%, n = 109, P = 0.028), were significantly more likely to show interest. These respondents also prioritized learning clinical research design methods (mean score: 7.28 vs. 6.52, P = 0.009), especially randomized controlled trials (n = 118, P = 0.048).
conclusionThe findings suggest a potential demand for high-quality international clinical research training among certain groups of Chinese clinical researchers. Respondents with higher educational qualifications and SCI publication experience appeared more likely to express interest in engaging in rigorous research and in participating in international training programs. Their training priorities were primarily related to study design, with particular emphasis on the conduct of large-scale randomized controlled trials(RCTs).
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.