Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31138284›Full record

ArticleTrials2019

Mind the gap? The platform trial as a working environment.

Liz Morrell, Joshua Hordern, Louise Brown, Matthew R Sydes, Claire L Amos, Richard S Kaplan, Mahesh K B Parmar, Timothy S Maughan

Open access · goldAbstract readLetter
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
20.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 50 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Liz MorrellHealth Economics Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. liz.morrell@ndph.ox.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6382-1795
Joshua HordernOxford Healthcare Values Partnership, Faculty of Theology and Religion, and Harris Manchester College, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Louise BrownMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, London, UK.
Matthew R SydesMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, London, UK.
Claire L AmosMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, London, UK.
Richard S KaplanMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, London, UK.
Mahesh K B ParmarMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, London, UK.
Timothy S MaughanCRUK/MRC Oxford Institute for Radiation Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL · GBUniversity of Oxford · GBOxford Health NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

Arts and Humanities Research Council AH/N009770/1Cancer Research UK 3804Department of Health 11/100/50Medical Research Council MC_UU_12023/20Medical Research Council MC_UU_12023/24Medical Research Council MC_UU_12023/25Medical Research Council MC_UU_12023/4Medical Research Council MR/M016587/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTrials have become bigger and more complicated due to the complexity introduced by biomarker stratification, and the advent of multi-arm multi-stage trials, and umbrella and basket platform designs. The trials unit at University College London has been at the forefront of this work, with ground-breaking trials such as STAMPEDE and FOCUS4. The trial management and data management teams on these trials have summarised the operational challenges, to enable the broader clinical trials community to learn from their experiences. In a small-scale qualitative study, we examined the personal experience of individual researchers working on these trials. COMMENTARY: We found reports of high workloads, with potentially significant stress for individuals and with an impact on their career choices. We conclude that there was an initial underestimation of the work required and of the inherent, largely unanticipated, challenges. We discuss the importance of fully understanding these trials' resource requirements, both for those writing grant applications and critically, for those with responsibility for deciding on funding. The working environment was characterised by three features: complexity, scale and heightened expectations. These features are highly attractive for professional development and engender high levels of loyalty and commitment. We observed a trade-off between these intrinsic rewards and the continuous demands of overlapping tasks, balancing a mix of routine and high-profile work, and the changing nature of pivotal roles. Such demands present challenges for colleague relationships, by enhancing the potential for competition and by disrupting the natural opportunities to pause, review and celebrate team achievements. In addition, molecular stratification in effect brings the patient into the trial office, as a specific individual, despite anonymisation, who is owed test results and a treatment decision. We discuss these observations with a view to interconnecting the need for compassion for patients with caring for the researchers engaged in the research ecosystem who are aiming to produce much hoped-for advances in medical science.

conclusionsThere is a need for increased awareness of the challenge these studies place on those throughout the team delivering the study. Such considerations must influence leaders and funders, both in their initial budget considerations and throughout delivery.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicResearch DesignAdaptive Clinical Trials as TopicHumansAdaptive designBiomarkerCompassionEfficiencyPlatform trialPrecision medicineQualitativeResearcherStratified medicineTrial management

Identifiers

PMID31138284
PMCPMC6540560
OpenAlexW2946967142

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.