ArticleJournal of translational medicine2025
Operational determinants of recruitment and biospecimen collection in translational observational studies: a multi-site comparative analysis.
Article in Journal of translational medicine, 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBiospecimen collection from study participants is essential for translational research, but operational challenges in study setup and conduct often impede successful delivery. This study uses a comparative approach to explore key logistical and staffing factors influencing setup duration, recruitment efficiency, sample acquisition, and data completeness across three investigator-led microbiome-wide association studies (MWAS) conducted at cancer centres in Ireland.
methodsThree academic observational MWAS enrolling participants with cancers of the breast, gastrointestinal tract, lung, biliary system, kidney, and skin were compared. Data from three cancer centres were analysed. Key variables included study team composition, administrative infrastructure, and full-time equivalent (FTE) research staffing. Metrics assessed included setup duration, recruitment rates, sample acquisition, and data completeness. Descriptive statistics, correlation analyses, and regression models were used to examine relationships between staffing and study performance.
resultsSetup duration ranged from 30 days (Site B, with a pre-established trials unit) to 390 days (Site A, with no dedicated setup personnel). At Site C, the addition of an Academic Clinical Trials Coordinator reduced the remaining setup timeline from 274 to 185 days. Recruitment rates ranged from 1.1 to 1.3 participants/month, with the highest rates at sites with dedicated research nurses (RN +). Sample acquisition was 100% at RN + sites and 70.5% at the RN- site. Site C achieved full data completeness, defined as comprehensive documentation of screening, exclusions, and follow-up outcomes. Statistical modelling suggested that dedicated staffing (both administrative and clinical) was associated with improvements across all metrics, although small sample size limited statistical significance.
conclusionsDedicated administrative and clinical trial personnel significantly may enhance study efficiency, participant recruitment, and biospecimen collection in academic translational research. This study provides practical insights for improving study design and infrastructure planning in future observational studies. To our knowledge, this is the first multi-site comparative evaluation of operational determinants in academic MWAS.
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.