ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Analysis of clinical research coordinator (CRC) deviation from assigned responsibilities in Sichuan, China based on empirical investigation.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Exploring the current status and causes of overstepping behavior among clinical research coordinators: providing reference for standardizing CRC responsibilities and safeguarding clinical trial quality and subject safety. Methods: The research utilized a literature review and semi-structured interviews to design the survey questionnaire, which was disseminated online through WeChat via a Questionnaire Star link. Data were processed for missing values and outliers using IBM SPSS Statistics 29.0 and R software program (version 4.1.2), with categorical variables summarized using frequencies and percentages. The questionnaire was designed independently by our research team (excluding members from participating institutions) and pre-tested on several non-participating clinical trial professionals to verify neutrality. Semi-structured interviews were conducted by two researchers unaffiliated with participating institutions, with cross-checks for consistency. Results: The self-designed questionnaire in this study comprised 15 closed-ended questions (eight single-choice and seven multiple-choice items) and two open-ended questions. Both the Scale-level Content Validity Index/Universal Agreement (S-CVI/UA) and the Scale-level Content Validity Index/Average (S-CVI/Ave) exceeded 0.9, while Cronbach's Alpha coefficient was greater than 0.7, indicating high overall content validity and reliability of the questionnaire. A total of 202 stakeholders in clinical trials participated in the survey, including staff from clinical trial institutions, sponsors/CROs, and SMO personnel. Survey results indicated that 177 respondents (33.71%/87.62%) attributed CRC role overstepping to investigators' unclear understanding of their own responsibilities and those of CRCs. Meanwhile, 181 participants (38.11%/89.60%) reported that such overstepping frequently occurred when investigators requested CRCs to perform potentially unauthorized tasks. The most common type of overstepping, identified by 152 respondents (31.93%/75.25%), involved CRCs using physicians' accounts to access hospital management systems for medical record documentation or modification. One hundred seventy-seven participants (29.70%/87.62%) proposed that strengthening investigator management, specifically by prohibiting the sharing of personal login credentials, should be implemented as a key control measure. Chi-square test performed on the collected data revealed no statistically significant differences ( Conclusion: CRC role boundary violations frequently correlate with investigators' insufficient awareness of regulatory requirements and clinical trial protocols. As principal contributors to clinical research, investigators must clearly delineate and fulfill their essential trial-related obligations. Concurrently, CRCs should strictly adhere to Good Clinical Practice (GCP) guidelines and industry standards while assisting investigators, thereby collectively enhancing trial efficiency and quality.
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.