ArticleJournal of the Royal Society of Medicine2008
Setting up non-commercial clinical trials takes too long in the UK: findings from a prospective study.
Article in Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Posterior cervical foraminotomy versus anterior cervical discectomy for Cervical Brachialgia: the FORVAD RCT.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2023Trial
- Setting up a clinical trial for a novel disease: a case study of the Doxycycline for the Treatment of Nodding Syndrome Trial - challenges, enablers and lessons learned.Global health action · 2018Trial
- Non-COVID-19 UK clinical trials and the COVID-19 pandemic: impact, challenges and possible solutions.Trials · 2023Article
- Making trials part of good clinical care: lessons from the RECOVERY trial.Future healthcare journal · 2021Article
- Article
- Non-commercial vs. commercial clinical trials: a retrospective study of the applications submitted to a research ethics committee.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2018Observational
- Challenges in the Ethical Review of Peer Support Interventions.Annals of family medicine · 2015Article
- Electronic health records for biological sample collection: feasibility study of statin-induced myopathy using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2014Article
- It is time for a harmonized ethical review procedure across Europe.European child & adolescent psychiatry · 2013Article
- Smaller sample sizes for phase II trials based on exact tests with actual error rates by trading-off their nominal levels of significance and power.British journal of cancer · 2012Article
- One stop or full stop? The continuing challenges for researchers despite the new streamlined NHS research governance process.BMC health services research · 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
- Time for D in R&D?Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the specific components of setting up a simple multicentre clinical study four years after the new UK law on clinical trials was implemented in 2004.
designTimelines associated with activating a randomized multicentre trial in lung cancer patients using an investigational medicinal product (statins) were prospectively recorded.
setting84 trial centres in the UK.
main outcome measuresThe time taken to go through the three stages necessary to activate a trial at a centre was examined: that is, the time from when Site Specific Information was electronically transferred to a participating centre until local research ethics committee (LREC) or research and development (R&D) approvals were obtained, and a signed Clinical Trials Site Agreement (CTSA) was received.
resultsIt took at least six months to obtain LREC approval in 21% of centres and R&D approval in 52% of centres. Twelve centres (14%) took at least 12 months to obtain R&D approval. 31% of centres took at least three months to return a signed CTSA. Although 52% of centres took at least six months to be activated, 13% were able to complete all three stages in two months or less.
conclusionsWhile some centres can activate trials relatively quickly, there is considerable variation the time taken to set up a trial, much of which is due to the delay in obtaining R&D approval. This is having a major adverse effect on UK health research. There is a national need to streamline the process for considering multi-centre non-commercial clinical trials, in particular, having fixed timelines for R&D assessment. Without this, the costs of trials will increase because of extended duration, and the time to answer a research question and alter clinical practice will be significantly prolonged.
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.