MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409286858 · doi:10.1097/nnr.0000000000000826

Considerations in Launching an International Multisite Clinical Trial

2025· article· en· W4409286858 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialTimelinePsychological interventionMedicineClinical trialFamily medicineNursingGeographySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Adequately powered randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) provide the highest level of evidence to support nursing interventions that are thought to improve clinical outcomes. To ensure adequate power, recruitment at multiple study sites is often required. Complexity is exponentiated when RCTs are conducted in multiple settings, especially on an international level. Regardless of logistical challenges, funders typically expect subjects to be enrolled within the first year of funding. OBJECTIVE: To describe essential elements that must be considered when launching a multisite RCT. METHODS: Step-by-step review of essential multisite RCT start-up activities using PROSpect , a nurse-led 50+ site international pediatric critical care RCT, as an exemplar. Essential pre- and postaward activities and organizational structure are discussed. The PROSpect launch timeline, with comparisons between United States and international study site initiation, is presented. RESULTS: In the first 2 years of PROSpect funding (June 15, 2018-June 14, 2020), 54 sites in 13 countries spanning five continents initiated study launch activities and subsequently went on to begin subject screening. Of these, 15 sites (28%) began screening within the first funding year and 29 (54%) within the second year. PROSpect enrolled its first subject prior to the end of the first year of funding. Sites completed launch activities within a median of 295 days of receiving an instructional e-mail delineating study launch steps (IQR: 202, 379; range = 151-1,046). International sites ( n = 19) required more time to launch than U.S. sites ( n = 35; 448 [360, 785] vs. 219 [201, 299] days; p < .001). DISCUSSION: Nurses must provide care that is supported by the best available evidence. Multisite RCTs are complex but provide high-quality evidence and can be managed with prospective systematic organization. In PROSpect, international sites took approximately twice as long to activate as U.S. sites. When developing a study start-up timeline, it is important to adjust milestones to accommodate the complexities of launching international sites and maintain momentum throughout the process, as start-up delays can increase the risk of trial failure. This paper contributes to recent efforts to demystify and streamline the multisite RCT start-up process for nurse investigators transitioning from conducting single-site to multisite trials.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.116
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.187
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.116
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.858
GPT teacher head0.789
Teacher spread0.069 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it