Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32503612›Full record

ArticleTrials2020

Evidencing the impact of cancer trials: insights from the 2014 UK Research Excellence Framework.

Catherine R Hanna, Lauren P Gatting, Kathleen Anne Boyd, Kathryn A Robb, Rob J Jones

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 29% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Catherine R HannaCRUK Clinical Trials Unit, Institute of Cancer Sciences, University of Glasgow, 1053 Great Western Road, Glasgow, G12 OYN, UK. catherine.hanna@glasgow.ac.uk.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0907-7747
Lauren P GattingInstitute of Health and Wellbeing, University Of Glasgow Gartnavel Royal Hospital, Admin Building, 1st Floor, 1055 Great Western Road, Glasgow,, G12 0XH, UK.
Kathleen Anne BoydInstitute of Health and Wellbeing, University Of Glasgow Gartnavel Royal Hospital, Admin Building, 1st Floor, 1055 Great Western Road, Glasgow,, G12 0XH, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9764-0113
Kathryn A RobbInstitute of Health and Wellbeing, University Of Glasgow, Health Economics and Health Technology Assessment, 1 Lilybank Gardens, Glasgow, G12 8RZ, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1672-0411
Rob J JonesCRUK Clinical Trials Unit, Institute of Cancer Sciences, University of Glasgow, 1053 Great Western Road, Glasgow, G12 OYN, UK.
University of Glasgow · GBGartnavel General Hospital · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 15960Cancer Research UK 174279-01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAn impactful clinical trial will have real-life benefits for patients and society beyond the academic environment. This study analyses case studies of cancer trials to understand how impact is evidenced for cancer trials and how impact evaluation can be more routinely adopted and improved.

methodsThe United Kingdom (UK) Government allocates research funding to higher-education institutions based on an assessment of the institutions' previous research efforts, in an exercise known as the Research Excellence Framework (REF). In addition to each institution's journal publications and research environment, for the first time in 2014, allocation of funding was also dependent on an evaluation of the wider, societal impact of research conducted. In the REF2014, impact assessment was performed by evaluation of impact case studies. In this study, case studies (n = 6637) submitted by institutions for the REF2014 were accessed and those focussing on cancer trials were identified. Manual content analysis was then used to assess the characteristics of the cancer trials discussed in the case studies, the impact described and the methods used by institutions to demonstrate impact.

resultsForty-six case studies describing 106 individual cancer trials were identified. The majority were phase III randomised controlled trials and those recruiting patients with breast cancer. A list of indicators of cancer trial impact was generated using the previous literature and developed inductively using these case studies. The most common impact from a cancer trial identified in the case studies was on policy, in particular citation of trial findings in clinical guidelines. Impact on health outcomes and the economy were less frequent and health outcomes were often predicted rather than evidenced. There were few descriptions identified of trialists making efforts to maximise trial impact. DISCUSSION: Cancer trial impact narratives for the next REF assessment exercise in 2021 can be improved by evidencing actual rather than predicted Impact, with a clearer identification of the beneficiaries of cancer trials and the processes through which trial results are used. Clarification of the individuals responsible for performing impact evaluations of cancer trials and the provision of resources to do so needs to be addressed if impact evaluation is to be sustainable.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsOutcome Assessment, Health CareQuality Indicators, Health CareClinical Trials as TopicCost-Benefit AnalysisFinancing, GovernmentHumansResearchUnited KingdomUniversities

Identifiers

PMID32503612
PMCPMC7275320
OpenAlexW3033255442

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.