ArticleContemporary clinical trials communications2025
Design and refinement of a clinical trial staffing model within the evolving landscape of oncology clinical trials.
Article in Contemporary clinical trials communications, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Quantifying workload for clinical trial staff represents an ongoing challenge for healthcare facilities conducting cancer clinical trials. We developed and evaluated a staffing model designed to meet this need. Methods: To address individual protocol acuity, the model's algorithms include metrics to account for visit frequency, and the quantity, and types of research-related procedures. Since implementation in 2012, the model has been used to justify clinical research team resource needs and to establish metrics for leadership to reference when reviewing replacement positions; particularly useful to justify resources at the institutional level during the COVID-19 pandemic.In recent years, we identified a gap between predicted and actual staff workload. This precipitated a comprehensive review in 2021 of all aspects of scoring within the model including a comparison to modern protocols to ensure accounting for all types of protocol-related procedures and tests. Results: Further investigation identified increasing complexity of trial screening, which had not been accounted for in the initial model. Specifically, screening-related activities accounted for up to 25% of coordinator effort. We incorporated this work into the model and demonstrated a statistically significant change in average protocol acuity ( Conclusion: Over the past decade, cancer clinical trial screening has increased in complexity and duration. Planning a cancer center's clinical trial workforce requires consideration of screening-related staff effort. For any effort model to be successful, ongoing examination and malleability are critical in this evolving landscape of clinical 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.