ArticleBMC medical ethics2025
Stakeholder perception of quality management of investigator-initiated clinical trials.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2025. 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
backgroundInvestigator-initiated clinical trials have flourished in China. However, research on stakeholders’ perceptions and management capacity of investigator-initiated clinical trials, which are crucial for optimizing resource utilization, timely identifying barriers affecting high-quality Investigator-initiated clinical trials output, and providing evidence for establishing, improving, and evaluating the quality management system for Investigator-initiated clinical trials, is rare. Our objective is to assess the perception of the standardized quality management of Investigator-initiated clinical trials among stakeholders at different levels of healthcare institutions.
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study using an electronic survey designed using REDCap conducted between June and September 2024 in Healthcare institutions of various levels in Beijing, China. Hospital level, education level, years in research, familiarity, distinction ability, medical personnel, research administrators, methodologists, and other personnel were investigated as potential influencing factors. The primary outcomes were the total number of correct answers and weighted correct rates for each domain and all six domains.
resultsA total of 717 individuals participated in the study. The distribution of total correct answers and weighted correct rates across all domains was 20.0 (15.0–23.0) and 0.8 (0.6–0.9), respectively. Participants from higher-level hospitals, those with higher education levels, greater familiarity, and higher distinction ability, and administrators performed significantly better in terms of the total number of correct answers and weighted correct rates across all domains.
conclusionsThe stakeholders performed well overall. However, much room for improvement still exists. Hospital level, education level, familiarity, distinction ability, and the role of research administrators can influence the overall performance of stakeholders. Establishing, improving, and evaluating a quality management system for Investigator-initiated clinical trials in China is crucial.
trial registrationNot applicable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.