Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17277284›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Royal Society of Medicine2007

Research governance impediments to clinical trials: a retrospective survey.

Rustam Al-Shahi Salman, Timothy M Brock, Martin S Dennis, Peter A G Sandercock, Philip M White, Charles Warlow

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Research governance delays for a multicentre non-interventional study.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2009
    Article
  13. Regulation and the social licence for medical research.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2008
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Bypassing bureaucracy to answer important questions quickly.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2008
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Rustam Al-Shahi SalmanDivision of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Edinburgh, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh EH4 2XU, UK. Rustam.Al-Shahi@ed.ac.uk
Timothy M Brock
Martin S Dennis
Peter A G Sandercock
Philip M White
Charles Warlow

Funding

Medical Research Council G108/613
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveWe sought to evaluate the delays, between-centre variations in practice, and opportunity costs attributable to delays in research governance approval of clinical trials in the United Kingdom.

designRetrospective survey.

settingResearch and Development (R&D) departments at 50 UK National Health Service hospital trusts governing 57 hospital sites.

participantsR&D departments participating in four randomized multicentre clinical trials coordinated by our Neurosciences Trials Unit.

interventionsNone.

main outcome measuresMedian delay between application and research governance approval.

resultsOnly half of the R&D departments used the UK online R&D form. Only a single copy of the application was required by 96% of R&D departments. The median delay between application and research governance approval was 44 working days (inter-quartile range 23-80). A delay of >20 working days was incurred by 43 applications (75%), of which 24 (56%) were not explicable and 11 (20%) were attributable to local funding negotiations. Based on the trial randomization rates at each centre, 108 patients (17% of all patients randomized) could have been randomized during the delay, at a crude cost to funding agencies of 53,743 pounds; if a four week delay was deemed acceptable, 75 patients (12% of all patients randomized) could have been randomized during unacceptable delays, at a crude cost to funding agencies of 37,700 pounds.

conclusionsThe UK research governance system incurs unacceptably long and costly delays for clinical trials. Urgent reform is needed, including rapid design and uniform implementation of the 'bureaucracy busting' measures in Best Research for Best Health.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchCosts and Cost AnalysisHumansMulticenter Studies as TopicOrganizational PolicyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID17277284
PMCPMC1790992

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.