ArticleTrials2018
What are the main inefficiencies in trial conduct: a survey of UKCRC registered clinical trials units in the UK.
Article in Trials, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
36 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Impacts of clinical research units on clinical research - a systematic review of empirical studies.Systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Impact of patient and public involvement on enrolment and retention in clinical trials: systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2018Pooled it
- Efficacy and toxicity of primary re-irradiation for malignant spinal cord compression based on radiobiological modelling: a phase II clinical trial.British journal of cancer · 2023Trial
- Trial
- Establishing a Clinical Trial Quality Team in a Comprehensive Cancer Center: A Strategy to Navigate the New European Regulatory Landscape.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Article
- Wolf Creek XVIII Part 5: cardiac arrest survivorship science.Resuscitation plus · 2026Article
- Review
- Wellbeing for staff in UKCRC-registered Clinical Trials Units: Development of the Flourishing As Clinical Trial Staff (FACTS) guidance: a mixed-methods study.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2025Article
- The POETIC (PrOcess Evaluation of Trials In Critical care) Framework: A Structured Approach for Designing and Conducting Process Evaluations in Critical Care Trials.Critical care explorations · 2025Article
- Navigating blinding challenges in complex intervention trials: insights from a UK researcher survey.Trials · 2025Article
- Clinical research and trials in echocardiography: rationale, requirements and future opportunities.Echo research and practice · 2025Review
- Improving Trial Informativeness: A Rapid Review of Global Research on How to Ensure Trials Are Useful.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2025Review
- Article
- Opportunities and challenges of conducting vaccine research in low and middle-income countries in the Asia-Pacific region: perspectives from the Asia-Pacific Vaccine Research Network.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2025Article
- Flourishing and job satisfaction in employees working in UK clinical trial units: a national cross-sectional survey.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Interpretation of statistical findings in randomised trials: a survey of statisticians using thematic analysis of open-ended questions.BMC medical research methodology · 2024Article
- Observational
- Article
- Insoles to ease plantar pressure in people with diabetes and peripheral neuropathy: a feasibility randomised controlled trial with an embedded qualitative study.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2023Article
- Better recognition for research participants: what society should learn from covid-19.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe UK Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC) registered Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) Network aims to support high-quality, efficient and sustainable clinical trials research in the UK. To better understand the challenges in efficient trial conduct, and to help prioritise tackling these challenges, we surveyed CTU staff. The aim was to identify important inefficiencies during two key stages of the trial conduct life cycle: (i) from grant award to first participant, (ii) from first participant to reporting of final results.
methodsRespondents were asked to list their top three inefficiencies from grant award to recruitment of the first participant, and from recruitment of the first participant to publication of results. Free text space allowed respondents to explain why they thought these were important. The survey was constructed using SurveyMonkey and circulated to the 45 registered CTUs in May 2013. Respondents were asked to name their unit and job title, but were otherwise anonymous. Free-text responses were coded into broad categories.
resultsThere were 43 respondents from 25 CTUs. The top inefficiency between grant award and recruitment of first participant was reported as obtaining research and development (R&D) approvals by 23 respondents (53%), contracts by 22 (51%), and other approvals by 13 (30%). The top inefficiency from recruitment of first participant to publication of results was failure to meet recruitment targets, reported by 19 (44%) respondents. A common comment was that this reflected overoptimistic or inaccurate estimates of recruitment at site. Data management, including case report form design and delays in resolving data queries with sites, was reported as an important inefficiency by 11 (26%) respondents, and preparation and submission for publication by 9 (21%).
conclusionsRecommendations for improving the efficiency of trial conduct within the CTUs network include: further reducing unnecessary bureaucracy in approvals and contracting; improving training for site staff; realistic recruitment targets and appropriate feasibility; developing training across the network; improving the working relationships between chief investigators and units; encouraging funders to release sufficient funding to allow prompt recruitment of trial staff; and encouraging more research into how to improve the efficiency and quality of trial conduct.
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.