Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18515777›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Royal Society of Medicine2008

Setting up non-commercial clinical trials takes too long in the UK: findings from a prospective study.

Allan Hackshaw, Hannah Farrant, Sue Bulley, Michael J Seckl, Jonathan A Ledermann

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. It is time for a harmonized ethical review procedure across Europe.European child & adolescent psychiatry · 2013
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Research governance delays for a multicentre non-interventional study.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2009
    Article
  15. Time for D in R&D?Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2008
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Allan HackshawCancer Research, UK. ah@ctc.ucl.ac.uk
Hannah Farrant
Sue Bulley
Michael J Seckl
Jonathan A Ledermann
Cancer Research UK · GBImperial College London · GBUniversity College London · GBYeovil District Hospital NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

HumansHydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase InhibitorsLung NeoplasmsMulticenter Studies as TopicProspective StudiesRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearchTime FactorsUnited KingdomHydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors

Identifiers

PMID18515777
PMCPMC2408623
OpenAlexW2141588859

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.