Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24240138›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2013

Factors influencing clinical trial site selection in Europe: the Survey of Attitudes towards Trial sites in Europe (the SAT-EU Study).

Marta Gehring, Rod S Taylor, Marie Mellody, Brigitte Casteels, Angela Piazzi, Gianfranco Gensini, Giuseppe Ambrosio

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Main changes in European Clinical Trials Regulation (No 536/2014).Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2018
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Burn patient care lost in good manufacturing practices?Annals of burns and fire disasters · 2016
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Current pipelines for neglected diseases.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2014
    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

7 authors.

Marta Gehringsbg Healthcare Consulting, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Rod S Taylor
Marie Mellody
Brigitte Casteels
Angela Piazzi
Gianfranco Gensini
Giuseppe Ambrosio

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesApplications to run clinical trials in Europe fell 25% between 2007 and 2011. Costs, speed of approvals and shortcomings of European Clinical Trial Directive are commonly invoked to explain this unsatisfactory performance. However, no hard evidence is available on the actual weight of these factors or has it been previously investigated whether other criteria may also impact clinical trial site selection.

designThe Survey of Attitudes towards Trial sites in Europe (SAT-EU Study) was an anonymous, cross-sectional web-based survey that systematically assessed factors impacting European clinical trial site selection. It explored 19 factors across investigator-driven, hospital-driven and environment-driven criteria, and costs. It also surveyed perceptions of the European trial environment. SETTING AND

participantsClinical research organisations (CROs), academic clinical trial units (CTUs) and industry invited to respond. OUTCOME MEASURES: PRIMARY OUTCOME: weight assigned to each factor hypothesised to impact trial site selection and trial incidence. Secondary outcome: desirability of European countries to run clinical trials.

resultsResponses were obtained from 485 professionals in 34 countries: 49% from BioPharma, 40% from CTUs or CROs. Investigator-dependent, environment-dependent and hospital-dependent factors were rated highly important, costs being less important (p<0.0001). Within environment-driven criteria, pool of eligible patients, speed of approvals and presence of disease-management networks were significantly more important than costs or government financial incentives (p<0.0001). The pattern of response was consistent across respondent groupings (CTU vs CRO vs industry). Considerable variability was demonstrated in the perceived receptivity of countries to undertake clinical trials, with Germany, the UK and the Netherlands rated the best trial markets (p<0.0001).

conclusionsInvestigator-dependent factors and ease of approval dominate trial site selection, while costs appear less important. Fostering competitiveness of European clinical research may not require additional government spending/incentives. Rather, harmonisation of approval processes, greater visibility of centres of excellence and reduction of 'hidden' indirect costs, may bring significantly more clinical trials to Europe.

Indexed as

Clinical trial site selection criteriaEuropean clinical trial competitiveness

Identifiers

PMID24240138
PMCPMC3831096

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.