ArticleBMJ open2013
Factors influencing clinical trial site selection in Europe: the Survey of Attitudes towards Trial sites in Europe (the SAT-EU Study).
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.
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
20 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Novel approaches to recruiting clinical sites for embedded pragmatic clinical trials: Insights from the AIM-back trial.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2025Article
- Enhancing site selection strategies in clinical trial recruitment using real-world data modeling.PloS one · 2024Article
- Geographic and socioeconomic access disparities to Phase 3 clinical trials in ophthalmology in the United States.Eye (London, England) · 2023Article
- COVID-19 site readiness initiative: Building clinical trial capacity for vaccine efficacy trials in Latin America in response to the pandemic.Vaccine: X · 2022Article
- Why not? Motivations for entering a volunteer register for clinical trials during the COVID-19 pandemic.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2022Article
- European survey on national harmonization in clinical research.Learning health systems · 2021Article
- Ethics committees for clinical experimentation at international level with a focus on Italy.Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis · 2020Review
- A systematic scorecard-based approach to site assessment in preparation for Lassa fever vaccine clinical trials in affected countries.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2020Article
- Cross-Border Access to Clinical Trials in the EU: Exploratory Study on Needs and Reality.Frontiers in medicine · 2020Article
- Article
- Design, planning and implementation lessons learnt from a surgical multi-centre randomised controlled trial.Trials · 2019Article
- Main changes in European Clinical Trials Regulation (No 536/2014).Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2018Article
- Review
- Improving site selection in clinical studies: a standardised, objective, multistep method and first experience results.BMJ open · 2017Article
- Clinical trial allocation in multinational pharmaceutical companies - a qualitative study on influential factors.Pharmacology research & perspectives · 2017Article
- The European Network of Coloproctology: a strategy towards the European research and healthcare system.Updates in surgery · 2016Article
- Burn patient care lost in good manufacturing practices?Annals of burns and fire disasters · 2016Article
- Perspective on optimizing clinical trials in critical care: how to puzzle out recurrent failures.Journal of intensive care · 2016Review
- Current pipelines for neglected diseases.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.