在大型临床试验中使用区域协调中心:DIG试验

Joseph F. Collins Sc.D. , Sylvia Martin R.N. , Eleanor Kent R.N. , Connie Liuni R.N. , Rekha Garg M.D., M.S. , Debra Egan M.Sc., M.P.H. , on behalf of the DIG Investigators
{"title":"在大型临床试验中使用区域协调中心:DIG试验","authors":"Joseph F. Collins Sc.D. ,&nbsp;Sylvia Martin R.N. ,&nbsp;Eleanor Kent R.N. ,&nbsp;Connie Liuni R.N. ,&nbsp;Rekha Garg M.D., M.S. ,&nbsp;Debra Egan M.Sc., M.P.H. ,&nbsp;on behalf of the DIG Investigators","doi":"10.1016/S0197-2456(03)00101-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The Digitalis Investigation Group (DIG) trial was a large simple clinical trial that involved 302 participating centers in the United States and Canada. In order to encourage participation by Canadian investigators, to provide additional help to what were expected to be largely research-inexperienced investigators in Canada, and to provide the study's data coordinating center with resources in Canada to deal with potentially different rules, regulations, and cultural differences, regional coordinating centers were established in four regions of Canada: the maritime provinces, Quebec, Ontario, and western Canada. Canadian centers recruited significantly better than their U.S. counterparts and had slightly better retention and follow-up. While it is not possible to declare that the regional coordinating centers were responsible for this improvement, it is believed that these regional centers did play a role. This role included being able to identify investigators who could be expected to do well, providing one-on-one training and instruction to investigators, and being able to solve problems and implement change in the relatively fewer centers in their regions. The regional coordinating center also reduced the intensity of the workload on the data coordinating center by serving as the primary point of contact for Canadian investigators. The use of regional coordinating centers in studies with a large number of participating centers is highly recommended.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":72706,"journal":{"name":"Controlled clinical trials","volume":"24 6","pages":"Pages S298-S305"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2003-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/S0197-2456(03)00101-6","citationCount":"11","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The use of regional coordinating centers in large clinical trials: the DIG trial\",\"authors\":\"Joseph F. Collins Sc.D. ,&nbsp;Sylvia Martin R.N. ,&nbsp;Eleanor Kent R.N. ,&nbsp;Connie Liuni R.N. ,&nbsp;Rekha Garg M.D., M.S. ,&nbsp;Debra Egan M.Sc., M.P.H. ,&nbsp;on behalf of the DIG Investigators\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/S0197-2456(03)00101-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>The Digitalis Investigation Group (DIG) trial was a large simple clinical trial that involved 302 participating centers in the United States and Canada. In order to encourage participation by Canadian investigators, to provide additional help to what were expected to be largely research-inexperienced investigators in Canada, and to provide the study's data coordinating center with resources in Canada to deal with potentially different rules, regulations, and cultural differences, regional coordinating centers were established in four regions of Canada: the maritime provinces, Quebec, Ontario, and western Canada. Canadian centers recruited significantly better than their U.S. counterparts and had slightly better retention and follow-up. While it is not possible to declare that the regional coordinating centers were responsible for this improvement, it is believed that these regional centers did play a role. This role included being able to identify investigators who could be expected to do well, providing one-on-one training and instruction to investigators, and being able to solve problems and implement change in the relatively fewer centers in their regions. The regional coordinating center also reduced the intensity of the workload on the data coordinating center by serving as the primary point of contact for Canadian investigators. The use of regional coordinating centers in studies with a large number of participating centers is highly recommended.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72706,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Controlled clinical trials\",\"volume\":\"24 6\",\"pages\":\"Pages S298-S305\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2003-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/S0197-2456(03)00101-6\",\"citationCount\":\"11\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Controlled clinical trials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0197245603001016\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Controlled clinical trials","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0197245603001016","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

摘要

洋地黄研究组(DIG)试验是一项大型简单临床试验,涉及美国和加拿大的302个参与中心。为了鼓励加拿大调查人员的参与,为加拿大大部分缺乏研究经验的调查人员提供额外的帮助,并为研究的数据协调中心提供加拿大的资源,以处理可能不同的规则、法规和文化差异,在加拿大的四个地区建立了区域协调中心:沿海省份、魁北克、安大略省和加拿大西部。加拿大的研究中心比美国的研究中心招募的人员要多得多,并且在挽留和随访方面也稍好一些。虽然不可能宣布区域协调中心对这种改善负责,但人们相信这些区域中心确实发挥了作用。这一角色包括能够确定哪些调查人员可以做得很好,为调查人员提供一对一的培训和指导,能够在他们所在地区相对较少的中心解决问题并实施变革。区域协调中心还作为加拿大调查人员的主要联络点,减轻了数据协调中心的工作量。强烈建议在有大量参与中心的研究中使用区域协调中心。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The use of regional coordinating centers in large clinical trials: the DIG trial

The Digitalis Investigation Group (DIG) trial was a large simple clinical trial that involved 302 participating centers in the United States and Canada. In order to encourage participation by Canadian investigators, to provide additional help to what were expected to be largely research-inexperienced investigators in Canada, and to provide the study's data coordinating center with resources in Canada to deal with potentially different rules, regulations, and cultural differences, regional coordinating centers were established in four regions of Canada: the maritime provinces, Quebec, Ontario, and western Canada. Canadian centers recruited significantly better than their U.S. counterparts and had slightly better retention and follow-up. While it is not possible to declare that the regional coordinating centers were responsible for this improvement, it is believed that these regional centers did play a role. This role included being able to identify investigators who could be expected to do well, providing one-on-one training and instruction to investigators, and being able to solve problems and implement change in the relatively fewer centers in their regions. The regional coordinating center also reduced the intensity of the workload on the data coordinating center by serving as the primary point of contact for Canadian investigators. The use of regional coordinating centers in studies with a large number of participating centers is highly recommended.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board On the generation and ownership of alpha in medical studies Measuring treatment impact: a review of patient-reported outcomes and other efficacy endpoints in approved product labels Geographic variability in patient characteristics, treatment and outcome in an international trial of magnesium in acute myocardial infarction Analyzing bronchodilation with emphasis on disease type, age and sex
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1