Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28603635›Full record

ArticlePharmacology research & perspectives2017

Clinical trial allocation in multinational pharmaceutical companies - a qualitative study on influential factors.

Tilde Dombernowsky, Merete Haedersdal, Ulrik Lassen, Simon F Thomsen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pharmacology research & perspectives, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Site readiness practices for clinical trials - considerations for CTSA hubs.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Tilde DombernowskyDepartment of Dermatology Copenhagen University Hospital Bispebjerg Bispebjerg Bakke 23, entrance 9DK-2400 Copenhagen NV Denmark.ORCID 0000-0001-8930-1341
Merete HaedersdalDepartment of Dermatology Copenhagen University Hospital Bispebjerg Bispebjerg Bakke 23, entrance 9DK-2400 Copenhagen NV Denmark.
Ulrik LassenDepartment of Oncology Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet Blegdamsvej 9, entrance 5073DK-2100 Copenhagen Ø Denmark.
Simon F ThomsenDepartment of Dermatology Copenhagen University Hospital Bispebjerg Bispebjerg Bakke 23, entrance 9DK-2400 Copenhagen NV Denmark.
Bispebjerg Hospital · DKCopenhagen University Hospital · DKUniversity of Copenhagen · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical trial allocation in multinational pharmaceutical companies includes country selection and site selection. With emphasis on site selection, the overall aim of this study was to examine which factors pharmaceutical companies value most when allocating clinical trials. The specific aims were (1) to identify key decision makers during country and site selection, respectively, (2) to evaluate by which parameters subsidiaries are primarily assessed by headquarters with regard to conducting clinical trials, and (3) to evaluate which site-related qualities companies value most when selecting trial sites. Eleven semistructured interviews were conducted among employees engaged in trial allocation at 11 pharmaceutical companies. The interviews were analyzed by deductive content analysis, which included coding of data to a categorization matrix containing categories of site-related qualities. The results suggest that headquarters and regional departments are key decision makers during country selection, whereas subsidiaries decide on site selection. Study participants argued that headquarters primarily value timely patient recruitment and quality of data when assessing subsidiaries. The site-related qualities most commonly emphasized during interviews were study population availability, timely patient recruitment, resources at the site, and site personnel's interest and commitment. Costs of running the trials were described as less important. Site personnel experience in conducting trials was described as valuable but not imperative. In conclusion, multinational pharmaceutical companies consider recruitment-related factors as crucial when allocating clinical trials. Quality of data and site personnel's interest and commitment are also essential, whereas costs seem less important. While valued, site personnel experience in conducting clinical trials is not imperative.

Indexed as

Clinical trial allocationpatient recruitmentpharmaceutical companiesqualitative researchtrial site selection

Identifiers

PMID28603635
PMCPMC5464345
OpenAlexW2614722299

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.