Clinical trials: 'Clinical integration': Laudable, but challenging

Nature Reviews Urology

Volumn 6, Issue 6, 2009, Pages 297-298

  Crawford, E David ^a   Tangen, Catherine M ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b SOUTHWEST ONCOLOGY GROUP STATISTICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL RESEARCH; CLINICAL STUDY; HUMAN; PERSONAL EXPERIENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZATION; RESEARCH SUBJECT; SHORT SURVEY; STUDY DESIGN; CLINICAL TRIAL; METHODOLOGY; NOTE; STANDARD;

CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; HUMANS;

EID: 70749116060     PISSN: 17594812     EISSN: 17594820     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nrurol.2009.97     Document Type: Short Survey

References (9)

1. vickers, A. J. & scardino, P. T. The clinicallyintegrated randomized trial: proposed novel method for conducting large trials at low cost. Trials 10, 14 (2009).
2. Dilts, D. M. et al. Processes to activate phase iii clinical trials in a cooperative oncology group: the Case of Cancer and Leukemia Group B. J. Clin. Oncol. 24, 4553-4557 (2006).
3. Tejeda, H. A. et al. Representation of African- Americans, Hispanics, and whites in national Cancer institute cancer treatment trials. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 88, 812-816 (1996).
4. Califf, R. M. Clinical trials bureaucracy: unintended consequences of well-intentioned policy. Clin. Trials 3, 496-502 (2006).
5. national Cancer institute Getting connected with caBIG® [online] https://cabig.nci.nih.gov/ getting-connected/1-ClinicalTrial-bundle- LOwres.pdf (2009).
6. velos [online] www.velos.com (2009).
7. Michigan institute for Clinical & Health Research Velos eResearch [online] http:// www.med.umich.edu/cacr/programs/velos- eresearch.html (2009).
8. Gwaltney, C. J., shields, A. L. & shiffman, s. equivalence of electronic and paper-and-pencil administration of patient-reported outcome measures: a meta-analytic review. Value Health 11, 322-333 (2008).
9. Coons, s. J. et al. Recommendations on evidence needed to support measurement equivalence between electronic and paperbased patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures: isPOR ePRO Good Research Practices Task Force Report. Value Health 12, 1-11 (2009).