Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26860107›Full record

ArticleTrials2016

Negotiating excess treatment costs in a clinical research trial: the good, the bad and the innovative.

Rebecca Palmer, Madeleine Harrison, Elizabeth Cross, Pam Enderby

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

4 authors.

Rebecca PalmerSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, 107 Innovation Centre, 217, Portobello, Sheffield, S1 4DP, UK. r.l.palmer@sheffield.ac.uk.
Madeleine HarrisonSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, 107 Innovation Centre, 217, Portobello, Sheffield, S1 4DP, UK. madeleine.harrison@sheffield.ac.uk.
Elizabeth CrossSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, 107 Innovation Centre, 217, Portobello, Sheffield, S1 4DP, UK. e.a.cross@sheffield.ac.uk.
Pam EnderbySchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, 107 Innovation Centre, 217, Portobello, Sheffield, S1 4DP, UK. p.m.enderby@sheffield.ac.uk.

Funding

Department of Health 12/21/01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

unlabelledBarriers to recovering the excess treatment costs associated with health research from local organisations in the United Kingdom can increase research costs, delay completion of high- quality studies and risk disenfranchising health trusts and patients from participation. The authors demonstrate how the process for recovering excess treatment costs at a local National Health Service (NHS) trust level in a multicentre study was inconsistent and resulted in excess effort and cost to the research budget. An innovative example of how an organisation acting as a broker between commissioners and researchers facilitated a more timely excess treatment cost agreement is highlighted.

trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN68798818, registered on 18 February 2014.

Indexed as

Health Care CostsBiomedical ResearchClinical Trials as TopicHumans

Identifiers

PMID26860107
PMCPMC4748533

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.