Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31829234›Full record

ArticleTrials2019

Criteria for site selection in industry-sponsored clinical trials: a survey among decision-makers in biopharmaceutical companies and clinical research organizations.

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

Abstract read
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 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Site readiness practices for clinical trials - considerations for CTSA hubs.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2023
    Article
  16. The Future of Contract Research Organizations in Dermatology and Aesthetic Research.The Journal of clinical and aesthetic dermatology · 2022
    Review
  17. The Future of Contract Research Organizations in Dermatology and Aesthetic Research.The Journal of clinical and aesthetic dermatology · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Tilde DombernowskyDepartment of Dermatology, Copenhagen University Hospital Bispebjerg, Bispebjerg Bakke 23, entrance 9, DK-2400, Copenhagen NV, Denmark. dombernowsky@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8930-1341
Merete HaedersdalDepartment of Dermatology, Copenhagen University Hospital Bispebjerg, Bispebjerg Bakke 23, entrance 9, DK-2400, Copenhagen NV, Denmark.
Ulrik LassenDepartment of Oncology, Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, entrance 5073, DK-2100, Copenhagen Ø, Denmark.
Simon Francis ThomsenDepartment of Dermatology, Copenhagen University Hospital Bispebjerg, Bispebjerg Bakke 23, entrance 9, DK-2400, Copenhagen NV, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Decision Making, OrganizationalDecision Making, SharedPatient SelectionClinical Trials as TopicCooperative BehaviorDrug IndustryHumansInterdisciplinary CommunicationResearch PersonnelResearch Support as TopicScandinavian and Nordic CountriesSurveys and QuestionnairesTime FactorsClinical research organizationsClinical trialsPharmaceutical industrySurveyTrial site selection

Identifiers

PMID31829234
PMCPMC6907246

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.