ArticleTrials2019
Criteria for site selection in industry-sponsored clinical trials: a survey among decision-makers in biopharmaceutical companies and clinical research organizations.
Article in Trials, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Impacts of clinical research units on clinical research - a systematic review of empirical studies.Systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Investigator-Initiated Trials as a Clinical Development Approach for Orphan Drugs Compared with Industry-Sponsored Trials in Japan.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2026Article
- TrialR: critical enablers and the need for reusable Rare Disease Clinical Trial infrastructure in Western Australia.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2026Article
- Establishing a clinical trial site: A primer for aspiring principal investigators.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2025Review
- Measuring What Matters in Trial Operations: Development and Validation of the Clinical Trial Site Performance Measure.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Utilization of a structured research site mentorship model to facilitate site performance in a clinical research network.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2025Article
- A SITC vision: adapting clinical trials to accelerate drug development in cancer immunotherapy.Journal for immunotherapy of cancer · 2025Article
- Operational Differences between Product Development Partnership, Pharmaceutical Industry, and Investigator Initiated Clinical Trials.Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2024Article
- Article
- Accelerating patient recruitment using social media: Early adopter experience from a good clinical practice-monitored randomized controlled phase I/IIa clinical trial on actinic keratosis.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2024Article
- Enhancing site selection strategies in clinical trial recruitment using real-world data modeling.PloS one · 2024Article
- Validation of evidence-based questionnaire for TCM syndrome differentiation of heart failure and evaluation of expert consensus.Chinese medicine · 2023Article
- Geographic and socioeconomic access disparities to Phase 3 clinical trials in ophthalmology in the United States.Eye (London, England) · 2023Article
- Translational research: from basic research to regional biomedical entrepreneurship.Small business economics · 2023Article
- Site readiness practices for clinical trials - considerations for CTSA hubs.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2023Article
- The Future of Contract Research Organizations in Dermatology and Aesthetic Research.The Journal of clinical and aesthetic dermatology · 2022Review
- The Future of Contract Research Organizations in Dermatology and Aesthetic Research.The Journal of clinical and aesthetic dermatology · 2022Article
- Presence and activities of clinical research coordinators at Italian Health Care Institutions: A national cross-sectional survey.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2022Article
- Clinical trial site identification practices and the use of electronic health records in feasibility evaluations: An interview study in the Nordic countries.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2021Article
- Cross-Border Access to Clinical Trials in the EU: Exploratory Study on Needs and Reality.Frontiers in medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundKnowledge of what the pharmaceutical industry emphasizes when assessing trial sites during site selection is sparse. A better understanding of this issue can improve the collaboration on clinical trials and increase knowledge of how to attract and retain industry-sponsored trials. Accordingly, we investigated which site-related qualities multinational biopharmaceutical companies and clinical research organizations (CROs) find most important during site selection.
methodsAn online survey among decision-makers for trial site selection in the Nordic countries employed at multinational biopharmaceutical companies and CROs was conducted. The respondents' experiences with and perceptions of site selection were addressed to evaluate the relative importance of site-related qualities. We included up to four respondents per company, representing different geographic regions. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize findings.
resultsOf 49 eligible companies, 20 biopharmaceutical companies and 23 CROs participated. In total, 83 responses were analyzed (estimated response rate 78%). A relative importance of site-related qualities was identified: For example, 88% (binomial 95% confidence interval [CI] ±7%) preferred reaching enrollment goals at trial sites in their region 10% quicker rather than cutting the costs at all sites by 20%. Likewise, 42% (CI ±11%) of the respondents preferred that trial sites were best at having the first patients ready for inclusion right after site initiation visit compared to having good data entry, documentation, and reporting practice (25% [CI ±9%]), easily reachable site personnel and backup (23% [CI ±9%]), fast contractual procedure times (6% [CI ±5%]), a key opinion leader associated with the site (3% [CI ±4%]), and updated equipment and facilities (1% [CI ±2%]). In total, 75% [CI ±9%] agreed that their company would be interested in cooperating with an inexperienced trial site if the site had access to a large patient population and 52% [CI ±11%] had experienced that their company selected an inexperienced trial site in favor of an experienced site due to a higher level of interest and commitment.
conclusionsThis study indicates that recruitment-related factors are pivotal to the pharmaceutical industry when assessing trial sites during site selection. Data quality-related factors seem highly valued especially in early phase trials whereas costs and investigator's publication track record are less important. Experience in conducting clinical trials is not imperative. However, this applies primarily to late phase trials.
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.