Suppr超能文献

使用标准化、自动化的试验中心评估调查工具(SASI)进行试验中心选择。

Selecting trial centers using a standardized, automated site assessment survey instrument (SASI).

机构信息

Department of Neurology, Brain Injury Outcomes Division, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.

Department of Pediatrics, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.

出版信息

Contemp Clin Trials. 2024 Aug;143:107583. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2024.107583. Epub 2024 May 29.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

To improve the site selection process for clinical trials, we expanded a site survey to include standardized assessments of site commitment time, team experience, feasibility of tight timelines, and local medical community equipoise as factors that might better predict performance. We also collected contact information about institutional research services ahead of site onboarding.

AIM

As a first step, we wanted to confirm that an expanded survey could be feasible and generalizable-that asking site teams for more details upfront was acceptable and that the survey could be completed in a reasonable amount of time, despite the assessment length.

METHODS

A standardized, two-part Site Assessment Survey Instrument (SASI), examining qualitative components and with multiple contact list sections, was developed using a publicly accessible dashboard and later transferred to a REDCap platform. After multiple rounds of internal testing, the SASI was deployed 11 times for multicenter trials. Follow-up questionnaires were sent to site teams to confirm that an expanded survey instrument is acceptable to the research community and could be completed during a brief work shift.

RESULTS

Respondents thought the SASI collected useful and relevant information about their sites (100%). Sites were "comfortable" (90%) supplying detailed information early in the site selection process and 57% completed the SASI in one to two hours.

CONCLUSIONS

Coordinating centers and sites found the SASI tool to be acceptable and helpful when collecting data in consideration of multicenter trial site selection.

摘要

背景

为了改进临床试验的选址流程,我们扩大了选址调查范围,纳入了对选址承诺时间、团队经验、紧张时间安排的可行性以及当地医学共同体均衡性等因素的标准化评估,这些因素可能更好地预测表现。我们还在选址之前收集了机构研究服务的联系方式。

目的

作为第一步,我们希望确认扩展调查是可行和可推广的,即要求选址团队提前提供更多详细信息是可以接受的,并且尽管评估篇幅较长,但调查可以在合理的时间内完成。

方法

使用一个公开可访问的仪表板开发了标准化的、两部分的选址评估调查工具(SASI),该工具检查定性部分,并设有多个联系人列表部分。经过多轮内部测试,SASI 被用于 11 次多中心试验。向选址团队发送后续问卷,以确认扩展调查工具是否被研究界接受,并且可以在短暂的工作轮班内完成。

结果

受访者认为 SASI 收集了有关其选址的有用且相关的信息(100%)。选址“愿意”(90%)在选址过程早期提供详细信息,57%的选址在一到两个小时内完成了 SASI。

结论

协调中心和选址认为,在考虑多中心试验选址时,SASI 工具在收集数据方面是可接受和有帮助的。

相似文献

1
Selecting trial centers using a standardized, automated site assessment survey instrument (SASI).
Contemp Clin Trials. 2024 Aug;143:107583. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2024.107583. Epub 2024 May 29.
2
Comparison of self-administered survey questionnaire responses collected using mobile apps versus other methods.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Jul 27;2015(7):MR000042. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000042.pub2.
4
Adapting Safety Plans for Autistic Adults with Involvement from the Autism Community.
Autism Adulthood. 2025 May 28;7(3):293-302. doi: 10.1089/aut.2023.0124. eCollection 2025 Jun.
6
Eliciting adverse effects data from participants in clinical trials.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Jan 16;1(1):MR000039. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000039.pub2.
7
Home treatment for mental health problems: a systematic review.
Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(15):1-139. doi: 10.3310/hta5150.
9
Emergency Medical Services Streaming Enabled Evaluation In Trauma: The SEE-IT Feasibility RCT.
Health Soc Care Deliv Res. 2025 May 28:1-38. doi: 10.3310/EUFS2314.
10
The measurement of collaboration within healthcare settings: a systematic review of measurement properties of instruments.
JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2016 Apr;14(4):138-97. doi: 10.11124/JBISRIR-2016-2159.

引用本文的文献

1
Insights from the trial innovation network's initial consultation process.
J Clin Transl Sci. 2025 Jun 26;9(1):e149. doi: 10.1017/cts.2025.10084. eCollection 2025.

本文引用的文献

1
Site readiness practices for clinical trials - considerations for CTSA hubs.
J Clin Transl Sci. 2023 Jun 29;7(1):e146. doi: 10.1017/cts.2023.569. eCollection 2023.
2
A framework for assessing clinical trial site readiness.
J Clin Transl Sci. 2023 May 8;7(1):e151. doi: 10.1017/cts.2023.541. eCollection 2023.
3
EHR-based cohort assessment for multicenter RCTs: a fast and flexible model for identifying potential study sites.
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2022 Mar 15;29(4):652-659. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocab265.
4
Recruitment and retention of participants in clinical studies: Critical issues and challenges.
Perspect Clin Res. 2020 Apr-Jun;11(2):51-53. doi: 10.4103/picr.PICR_6_20. Epub 2020 May 6.
6
Overcoming Barriers to Clinical Trial Enrollment.
Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2019 Jan;39:105-114. doi: 10.1200/EDBK_243729. Epub 2019 May 17.
8
Factors associated with clinical trials that fail and opportunities for improving the likelihood of success: A review.
Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2018 Aug 7;11:156-164. doi: 10.1016/j.conctc.2018.08.001. eCollection 2018 Sep.
9
Clinical trials recruitment planning: A proposed framework from the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative.
Contemp Clin Trials. 2018 Mar;66:74-79. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2018.01.003. Epub 2018 Jan 9.
10
Factors Associated With Time to Site Activation, Randomization, and Enrollment Performance in a Stroke Prevention Trial.
Stroke. 2017 Sep;48(9):2511-2518. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.117.016976. Epub 2017 Aug 2.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验