ArticleTrials2020
Letter on Predicting the number of sites needed to deliver a multicentre clinical trial within a limited time frame in the UK.
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Article
- Non-COVID-19 UK clinical trials and the COVID-19 pandemic: impact, challenges and possible solutions.Trials · 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
When planning a multicentre clinical trial, it can be difficult to predict the time needed to open individual sites, and this in turn impacts on the total number of sites needed, the budget and the time frame for a clinical trial to be delivered successfully. This is of particular importance for funding applications with a limited time frame and budget such as NIHR RfPB. It is more efficient and cost-effective to open the total number of sites needed at the outset of a trial, rather than to respond later to slow site opening and recruitment. Here, we share our experience of successfully delivering a multicentre clinical trial for a rare disease within a limited time frame and budget by approximately doubling the number of sites initially predicted to be needed. We initially predicted 20 sites would be needed to deliver the clinical trial, but early on in the trial, the number of sites was more than doubled to allow successful recruitment of the target sample size within the desired time frame. Of the 48 ethically approved sites, the median time from ethical approval of a site to opening for recruitment was 182 days (95% confidence interval [143 to 245 days]) and ranged from 18 to 613 days. In four (9%) of these sites, part of the delay was due to pharmacy sign off not being given when R&D had issued capacity and capability (C&C). Delays due to pharmacy sign off varied from 10 days to over 3 months delay in two sites (94 days and 102 days). A mathematical solution to the problem of planning a study with a short recruitment window has been given to support the planning and costing of grants with fixed time constraints: number of sites = required sample size divided by (number of eligible patients per site per month times recruitment rate times (the number of months accrual minus 6 months)). We expect these results to help others who are planning multicentre clinical trials in the UK. Ethical approval from NRES Committee South West (IRAS number 225959).
trial registrationEudraCT Number 2017-001171-23 . Registered on 26 June 2017.
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.