ArticleJournal of the Royal Society of Medicine2007
Research governance impediments to clinical trials: a retrospective survey.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Regulatory delays in a multinational clinical stroke trial.European stroke journal · 2021Article
- Design, planning and implementation lessons learnt from a surgical multi-centre randomised controlled trial.Trials · 2019Article
- What are the main inefficiencies in trial conduct: a survey of UKCRC registered clinical trials units in the UK.Trials · 2018Article
- Article
- Heterogeneity of Human Research Ethics Committees and Research Governance Offices across Australia: An observational study.The Australasian medical journal · 2016Article
- Opening research sites in multicentre clinical trials within the UK: a detailed analysis of delays.BMJ open · 2014Article
- Bureaucracy stifles medical research in Britain: a tale of three trials.BMC medical research methodology · 2012Article
- Knowledge, Awareness, and Attitudes about Research Ethics among Dental Faculty in the Middle East: A Pilot Study.International journal of dentistry · 2011Article
- Integrating utilization-focused evaluation with business process modeling for clinical research improvement.Research Evaluation · 2010Article
- How the NHS research governance procedures could be modified to greatly strengthen clinical research.Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2010Article
- Article
- Research governance delays for a multicentre non-interventional study.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2009Article
- Regulation and the social licence for medical research.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2008Article
- Translating research into practice: lessons from trials of thrombolysis in acute stroke.Annals of Indian Academy of Neurology · 2008Article
- Setting up non-commercial clinical trials takes too long in the UK: findings from a prospective study.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2008Article
- Bypassing bureaucracy to answer important questions quickly.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.