Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39677142›Full record

ArticleCureus2024

Addressing Challenges to Enhance Clinical Research in Portugal: Insights from the OncoT3 Expert Group Delphi Study.

Catarina Resende, Marta Abreu, José Presa Ramos, José Carda, Luís Costa, Fátima Cardoso, Deolinda Pereira, Encarnação Teixeira, Fernanda S Tonin, Filipa Duarte-Ramos

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

10 authors.

Catarina ResendeMedicine, University of Coimbra, Agencia de Investigação Clínica e Inovação Biomédica (AICIB), Coimbra, PRT.
Marta AbreuMedical Oncology, AstraZeneca, Lisbon, PRT.
José Presa RamosInternal Medicine, Hepatology Unit, Centro Hospitalar Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, Vila Real, PRT.
José CardaHematology, Hospital da Luz, Lisbon, PRT.
Luís CostaMedical Oncology, Centro Hospitalar Universitário Lisboa Norte, Lisbon, PRT.
Fátima CardosoOncology, Breast Unit, Champalimaud Foundation, Lisbon, PRT.
Deolinda PereiraMedical Oncology, Instituto Português de Oncologia do Porto, Porto, PRT.
Encarnação TeixeiraPulmonology, Lung Cancer Unit, Hospital Companhia União Fabril (CUF) Descobertas, Lisbon, PRT.
Fernanda S ToninHealth and Technology Research Center, Escola Superior de Tecnologia da Saúde de Lisboa (ESTeSL) - Instituto Politécnico de Lisboa (IPL), Lisbon, PRT.
Filipa Duarte-RamosPharmacy, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, PRT.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction Over the past decades, clinical research has evolved significantly, driven by advances in regulatory frameworks, technological innovations, and methodological approaches. In Portugal, while there has been progress - such as increased regulatory alignment with European standards and the adoption of digital trial management tools - various challenges remain. These may include, among others, limited access to funding, slower patient recruitment rates, and regulatory hurdles that can delay trial approvals. Our goal was to identify key areas for improvement toward the optimization of clinical research practices in the country. Methods A modified three-round Delphi study was conducted online (2023-2024) to achieve a nationwide expert consensus. The scientific committee, composed of seven experts, developed 45 initial statements across five topics: dedication time to clinical research, organization of integrated research centers, conditions for implementing clinical trials, the role of institutional authorities, and patient recruitment and referral. A five-point Likert-type scale was used (1 - 'strongly disagree', 2 - 'disagree', 3 - 'neither agree nor disagree', 4 - 'agree', and 5 - 'strongly agree') to rate each statement. The consensus threshold was established as a percentage of agreement among participants (≥90% in the first round and ≥85% in the second round). The level of consensus achieved by the panel was discussed by the scientific committee during virtual meetings. Results Fifty-one experts completed the exercise (86.4% response rate). Consensus was reached on 32 of the 45 initial statements (71.1%) in the first round, with most of them (n = 20, or 62.5%) presenting high concordance rates (>95%). Four new statements were added for the second round, grounded on the feedback from the experts. By the end of the study, consensus was achieved on 45 out of the 49 final statements (91.8%), with the greatest agreement on the organization of integrated research centers and conditions for implementing clinical trials. Three statements regarding patient recruitment and referral, and one statement on the role of institutional authorities to promote clinical research, did not reach consensus, highlighting the need for further dialogue and innovative solutions in these fields. Conclusion The insights of this study can inform health organizations, regulatory agencies, and other stakeholders about the barriers and opportunities to improve clinical research in Portugal. By learning from global best practices and tailoring strategies to local contexts, the country can become a more prominent player in the international community.

Indexed as

clinical researchclinical trialdelphi methodportugalresearch framework

Identifiers

PMID39677142
PMCPMC11646638

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.