Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35313818›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2022

Research monitoring practices in critical care research: a survey of current state and attitudes.

Renate Le Marsney, Tara Williams, Kerry Johnson, Shane George, Kristen S Gibbons

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. The Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Paediatric Study Group (ANZICS PSG): 20 Years of Collaborative Research.Pediatric critical care medicine : a journal of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the World Federation of Pediatric Intensive and Critical Care Societies · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Renate Le MarsneyPaediatric Critical Care Research Group, Child Health Research Centre, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Tara WilliamsPaediatric Critical Care Research Group, Child Health Research Centre, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Kerry JohnsonPaediatric Critical Care Research Group, Child Health Research Centre, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Shane GeorgePaediatric Critical Care Research Group, Child Health Research Centre, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Kristen S GibbonsPaediatric Critical Care Research Group, Child Health Research Centre, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. k.gibbons@uq.edu.au.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

aimsIn 2016, international standards governing clinical research recommended that the approach to monitoring a research project should be undertaken based on risk, however it is unknown whether this approach has been adopted in Australia and New Zealand (ANZ) throughout critical care research. The aims of the project were to: 1) Gain an understanding of current research monitoring practices in academic-led clinical trials in the field of critical care research, 2) Describe the perceived barriers and enablers to undertaking research monitoring.

methodsElectronic survey distributed to investigators, research co-ordinators and other research staff currently undertaking and supporting academic-led clinical trials in the field of critical care in ANZ.

resultsOf the 118 respondents, 70 were involved in the co-ordination of academic trials; the remaining results pertain to this sub-sample. Fifty-eight (83%) were working in research units associated with hospitals, 29 (41%) were experienced Research Coordinators and 19 (27%) Principal Investigators; 31 (44%) were primarily associated with paediatric research. Fifty-six (80%) develop monitoring plans with 33 (59%) of these undertaking a risk assessment; the most common barrier reported was lack of expertise. Nineteen (27%) indicated that centralised monitoring was used, noting that technology to support centralised monitoring (45/51; 88%) along with support from data managers and statisticians (45/52; 87%) were key enablers. Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) impacted monitoring for 82% (45/55) by increasing remote (25/45; 56%) and reducing onsite (29/45; 64%) monitoring.

conclusionsContrary to Good Clinical Practice guidance, risk assessments to inform monitoring plans are not being consistently performed due to lack of experience and guidance. There is an urgent need to enhance risk assessment methodologies and develop technological solutions for centralised statistical monitoring.

Indexed as

COVID-19AttitudeChildClinical Trials as TopicCritical CareHumansResearch PersonnelSurveys and QuestionnairesClinical trialMonitoringRisk-based monitoring

Identifiers

PMID35313818
PMCPMC8935263

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.