ArticleTrials2017
Comparative costs and activity from a sample of UK clinical trials units.
Article in Trials, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Real World Evidence Versus Randomised Controlled Trials: Is the Future of Nutritional Sciences Research in Electronic Health Records?Nutrition bulletin · 2026Review
- Navigating the challenges of clinical trial professionals in the healthcare sector.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Review
- New guidelines for research in airway device evaluation: time for an updated approach (ADEPT-2) to the Difficult Airway Society's 'ADEPT' strategy?Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2023Article
- Toward a global harmonization of service infrastructure in academic clinical trial units: an international survey.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- Article
- A New Methodology to Estimate Drug Cost Avoidance in Clinical Trials: Development and Application.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Costs and staffing resource requirements for adaptive clinical trials: quantitative and qualitative results from the Costing Adaptive Trials project.BMC medicine · 2021Article
- COVID-19, Social Justice, and Clinical Cancer Research.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2021Article
- What discontinued trials teach us about trial registration?BMC research notes · 2021Article
- Impact of surgically maximized versus native membranous urethral length on 30-day and long-term pad-free continence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.Prostate international · 2020Article
- Learning from a Feasibility Trial of a Simple Intervention: Is Research a Barrier to Service Delivery, or is Service Delivery a Barrier to Research?Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Budgeting of non-commercial clinical trials: development of a budget tool by a public funding agency.Trials · 2019Article
- Design, planning and implementation lessons learnt from a surgical multi-centre randomised controlled trial.Trials · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe costs of medical research are a concern. Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) need to better understand variations in the costs of their activities.
methodsRepresentatives of ten CTUs and two grant-awarding bodies pooled their experiences in discussions over 1.5 years. Five of the CTUs provided estimates of, and written justification for, costs associated with CTU activities required to implement an identical protocol. The protocol described a 5.5-year, nonpharmacological randomized controlled trial (RCT) conducted at 20 centres. Direct and indirect costs, the number of full time equivalents (FTEs) and the FTEs attracting overheads were compared and qualitative methods (unstructured interviews and thematic analysis) were used to interpret the results. Four members of the group (funding-body representatives or award panel members) reviewed the justification statements for transparency and information content. Separately, 163 activities common to trials were assigned to roles used by nine CTUs; the consistency of role delineation was assessed by Cohen's κ.
resultsMedian full economic cost of CTU activities was £769,637 (range: £661,112 to £1,383,323). Indirect costs varied considerably, accounting for between 15% and 59% (median 35%) of the full economic cost of the grant. Excluding one CTU, which used external statisticians, the total number of FTEs ranged from 2.0 to 3.0; total FTEs attracting overheads ranged from 0.3 to 2.0. Variation in directly incurred staff costs depended on whether CTUs: supported particular roles from core funding rather than grants; opted not to cost certain activities into the grant; assigned clerical or data management tasks to research or administrative staff; employed extensive on-site monitoring strategies (also the main source of variation in non-staff costs). Funders preferred written justifications of costs that described both FTEs and indicative tasks for funded roles, with itemised non-staff costs. Consistency in role delineation was fair (κ = 0.21-0.40) for statisticians/data managers and poor for other roles (κ < 0.20).
conclusionsSome variation in costs is due to factors outside the control of CTUs such as access to core funding and levels of indirect costs levied by host institutions. Research is needed on strategies to control costs appropriately, especially the implementation of risk-based monitoring strategies.
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.