ArticleClinical and translational science2026
Protocol Deviations at an Academic Clinical Research Unit: Insights and Strategies for Prevention.
Article in 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Protocol deviations threaten data integrity, regulatory compliance, and participant safety in clinical trials. Despite their prevalence, few longitudinal studies have characterized deviation patterns and described quality improvement strategies within clinical research units (CRUs). This descriptive longitudinal quality improvement study analyzed protocol deviations and prevented incidents reported at the University of Iowa CRU from June 17, 2020, through December 31, 2024. Events were captured via online survey and classified using a five-grade severity scale. Pearson's chi-square tests assessed associations between event characteristics and outcomes. During the survey data-collection period, 11,581 CRU visits were recorded. Overall, 261 events were reported, including 100 incidents prevented before becoming protocol deviations and 68 confirmed protocol deviations; 93 events preceded systematic collection of the prevented/resulted classification. Grade 1 was the most frequently selected severity classification (126 of 178 severity-grade selections; 70.8%). The laboratory (60.2%) and study setup (33.7%) were the most frequent event contexts. Among events with a prevented/resulted classification, Grade 1 events were more frequently prevented than Grade 2-5 events (71.8% vs. 25.0%; p < 0.0001). Quality improvement strategies implemented during the observation period included dedicated study liaisons, standardized start-up checklists, increased staffing, and structured communication processes. Lower-severity events were more frequently prevented before resulting in protocol deviations. These findings identify operational contexts and event characteristics that may inform proactive, systems-based approaches to deviation prevention in CRUs.
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.