ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Beyond GCP: developing a differentiated competency framework for principal investigators in innovative drug clinical trials in China.
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The increasing complexity and diversity of innovative drug clinical trials in China have expanded the competencies expected of principal investigators (PIs) beyond minimum regulatory qualifications. However, existing frameworks are primarily international and may not fully reflect China's institutional and regulatory context. This study aimed to develop a concise PI competency inventory adapted to China and to explore a differentiated, context-sensitive approach to competency development. Methods: A multiphase mixed-methods modified Delphi study was conducted. First, an initial pool of 64 competency indicators was generated through a structured literature review and semi-structured expert interviews. Subsequently, two rounds of the Delphi method were conducted. In the initial round, a comprehensive expert recruitment process was undertaken, leading to indicator integration through quantitative correlation and content analyses which streamlined the indicators to 30 items. The second-round consultation was conducted using the streamlined indicators.Panel composition changed between rounds: some Round 1 experts did not participate in Round 2, and two regulatory experts were added to strengthen stakeholder representation and content validity. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) 26.0 was utilized for quantitative analysis, encompassing descriptive statistics, the calculation of Kendall's Results: An exploratory framework comprising 30 competencies was established. The mean expert authority coefficient was 0.87. The test of concordance was statistically significant ( Conclusions: This exploratory 30-item inventory provides an initial structure for evaluating PI competencies in China's innovative-drug trial context. Its differentiation logic offers preliminary perspectives to inform the future development of differentiated and context-sensitive PI competency models. While this framework may inform future training system design, institutional human-resource management, and PI career development, its long-term validity, feasibility, and practical utility warrant prospective, real-world evaluation.
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.