Fan Wang, Xu Wang, Enmei Liu, Fujian Song, Yaolong Chen
{"title":"临床研究单位对临床研究的影响——实证研究的系统回顾。","authors":"Fan Wang, Xu Wang, Enmei Liu, Fujian Song, Yaolong Chen","doi":"10.1186/s13643-025-02813-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Clinical research is essential for evidence-based decision-making in healthcare practice, but its conduct is hindered by various barriers. While previous studies suggest that clinical research units (CRUs) provide critical support and expertise for complex clinical research, their necessity for ensuring high-quality clinical research remains uncertain. The primary objective of this systematic review is to identify, assess, and summarize results of studies that empirically evaluated the impacts of CRUs on clinical research.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global from inception to July 2024 to identify relevant studies. Study selection, quality evaluation, and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers, with any disagreements resolved through discussion. Data extracted from the included studies were summarized in tables, and the synthesis were guided by a realist review approach.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 11 publications corresponding to 10 studies were included in the review. These studies involved 8 independent CRUs and 2 groups of CRUs. The settings in the CRUs operated were diverse, including general hospitals or medical centres, paediatric hospitals, professional sarcoma group, and others. The CRUs featured varied structures and staff compositions, with services tailored to the specific needs of local research teams, study types, and the availability of other research resources. The reported impacts of CRUs were consistently positive in terms of efficiency, quantity, and quality of clinical research. Following the establishment of the CRUs, the number of clinical research has increased by 5 to 23 annually.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The implementation of CRU enhances the efficiency, quantity, and quality of clinical research through process refinement, methodological support, resource pooling, reduced researcher workload, and adherence to good clinical practice (GCP), thereby ensuring patient safety and data integrity. Future research should include rigorous comparative studies, such as randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing outcomes with and without CRUs, to further validate these findings.</p><p><strong>Systematic review registration: </strong>PROSPERO CRD42024575392.</p>","PeriodicalId":22162,"journal":{"name":"Systematic Reviews","volume":"14 1","pages":"94"},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12039282/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Impacts of clinical research units on clinical research - a systematic review of empirical studies.\",\"authors\":\"Fan Wang, Xu Wang, Enmei Liu, Fujian Song, Yaolong Chen\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13643-025-02813-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Clinical research is essential for evidence-based decision-making in healthcare practice, but its conduct is hindered by various barriers. While previous studies suggest that clinical research units (CRUs) provide critical support and expertise for complex clinical research, their necessity for ensuring high-quality clinical research remains uncertain. The primary objective of this systematic review is to identify, assess, and summarize results of studies that empirically evaluated the impacts of CRUs on clinical research.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global from inception to July 2024 to identify relevant studies. Study selection, quality evaluation, and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers, with any disagreements resolved through discussion. Data extracted from the included studies were summarized in tables, and the synthesis were guided by a realist review approach.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 11 publications corresponding to 10 studies were included in the review. These studies involved 8 independent CRUs and 2 groups of CRUs. The settings in the CRUs operated were diverse, including general hospitals or medical centres, paediatric hospitals, professional sarcoma group, and others. The CRUs featured varied structures and staff compositions, with services tailored to the specific needs of local research teams, study types, and the availability of other research resources. The reported impacts of CRUs were consistently positive in terms of efficiency, quantity, and quality of clinical research. Following the establishment of the CRUs, the number of clinical research has increased by 5 to 23 annually.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The implementation of CRU enhances the efficiency, quantity, and quality of clinical research through process refinement, methodological support, resource pooling, reduced researcher workload, and adherence to good clinical practice (GCP), thereby ensuring patient safety and data integrity. Future research should include rigorous comparative studies, such as randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing outcomes with and without CRUs, to further validate these findings.</p><p><strong>Systematic review registration: </strong>PROSPERO CRD42024575392.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22162,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Systematic Reviews\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"94\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12039282/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Systematic Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-025-02813-3\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-025-02813-3","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:临床研究对医疗实践中的循证决策至关重要,但其实施受到各种障碍的阻碍。虽然以前的研究表明临床研究单位(cru)为复杂的临床研究提供了关键的支持和专业知识,但它们对确保高质量临床研究的必要性仍然不确定。本系统综述的主要目的是识别、评估和总结经验评估cru对临床研究影响的研究结果。方法:综合检索PubMed、Embase、Web of Science、ProQuest dissertation and Theses Global自成立以来至2024年7月的相关研究。研究选择、质量评价和数据提取均由两位审稿人独立完成,任何分歧均通过讨论解决。从纳入的研究中提取的数据汇总在表格中,并以现实主义回顾方法指导综合。结果:共纳入11篇文献,对应10项研究。这些研究涉及8个独立的cru和2组cru。开展的联合治疗中心的环境多种多样,包括综合医院或医疗中心、儿科医院、专业肉瘤小组等。研究小组的结构和人员组成各不相同,并根据本地研究小组的具体需要、研究类型和其他研究资源提供量身定制的服务。报告的cru的影响在临床研究的效率、数量和质量方面一直是积极的。cru成立后,临床研究数量每年增加5个至23个。结论:CRU的实施通过流程优化、方法学支持、资源共享、减少研究人员工作量和遵守良好临床规范(GCP),提高了临床研究的效率、数量和质量,从而确保了患者安全和数据完整性。未来的研究应该包括严格的比较研究,如随机对照试验(rct),比较有和没有cru的结果,以进一步验证这些发现。系统评价注册:PROSPERO CRD42024575392。
Impacts of clinical research units on clinical research - a systematic review of empirical studies.
Background: Clinical research is essential for evidence-based decision-making in healthcare practice, but its conduct is hindered by various barriers. While previous studies suggest that clinical research units (CRUs) provide critical support and expertise for complex clinical research, their necessity for ensuring high-quality clinical research remains uncertain. The primary objective of this systematic review is to identify, assess, and summarize results of studies that empirically evaluated the impacts of CRUs on clinical research.
Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global from inception to July 2024 to identify relevant studies. Study selection, quality evaluation, and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers, with any disagreements resolved through discussion. Data extracted from the included studies were summarized in tables, and the synthesis were guided by a realist review approach.
Results: A total of 11 publications corresponding to 10 studies were included in the review. These studies involved 8 independent CRUs and 2 groups of CRUs. The settings in the CRUs operated were diverse, including general hospitals or medical centres, paediatric hospitals, professional sarcoma group, and others. The CRUs featured varied structures and staff compositions, with services tailored to the specific needs of local research teams, study types, and the availability of other research resources. The reported impacts of CRUs were consistently positive in terms of efficiency, quantity, and quality of clinical research. Following the establishment of the CRUs, the number of clinical research has increased by 5 to 23 annually.
Conclusions: The implementation of CRU enhances the efficiency, quantity, and quality of clinical research through process refinement, methodological support, resource pooling, reduced researcher workload, and adherence to good clinical practice (GCP), thereby ensuring patient safety and data integrity. Future research should include rigorous comparative studies, such as randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing outcomes with and without CRUs, to further validate these findings.
期刊介绍:
Systematic Reviews encompasses all aspects of the design, conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. The journal publishes high quality systematic review products including systematic review protocols, systematic reviews related to a very broad definition of health, rapid reviews, updates of already completed systematic reviews, and methods research related to the science of systematic reviews, such as decision modelling. At this time Systematic Reviews does not accept reviews of in vitro studies. The journal also aims to ensure that the results of all well-conducted systematic reviews are published, regardless of their outcome.