ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2026
Findings and recommendations from a root cause analysis of a clinical trial randomization error.
Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Participants in NIH-funded multicenter clinical trial received the compound opposite to the randomization intention. We report the problem, subsequent root cause analysis (RCA) and corrective and preventative action (CAPA). Methods: The RCA was independently facilitated to identify study-level causes of the problem. Results were reviewed by institutional research administration leaders to identify institution-level causes and formulate corresponding CAPA. Both culminated in consensus. Results: The resulting causal chain consisted of two physical causes, two study-level system causes, and two institution-level system causes for which two institution-level CAPAs were formulated by institutional leadership. The CAPAs established institutional procedures for independent verification of critical processes, their specification, and their planned control on high-risk studies. Conclusions: Lack of study-level procedural infrastructure jeopardized a multicenter study led by our institution. Lack of institutional infrastructure supporting identification of critical study processes, risks to them, and appropriate controls enabled the problem to occur. Studies conducted in settings lacking institutional or study-level procedural infrastructure are susceptible to similar problems. Adding the needed institutional processes to support identification of critical study processes, risks to them, and appropriate controls required reprioritizing existing resources.
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.