ArticleTherapeutic innovation & regulatory science2023
Implementation of Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 as a Non-commercial Sponsor: An Internal Survey and a Descriptive Analysis of Timelines.
Article in Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Implementation of the EU Clinical Trials Regulation and CTIS in Europe: a Comparative Regulatory Analysis (2013-2024).Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2026Review
- Advancing Regulatory Oversight of Medical Device Trials to Align with Clinical Drug Standards in the European Union.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTo safeguard the safety and interests of subjects participating in clinical trials, their conduct is heavily regulated. The EU Clinical Trials Regulation (CTR) 536/2014 brings fundamental changes that will require sponsors to adapt their current way of working. One major change is the significant shortening of the permitted reply timelines to requests for information (RFI), which may require adaptations to established processes within an organisation. This study aimed to assess these reply timelines at the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC), a non-commercial sponsor. Additionally, it aimed to investigate how the impact of the different CTR requirements is perceived by the organisation's staff.
methodsA retrospective analysis was performed to assess the length of reply to grounds of non-acceptance (GNA) timelines. Questionnaires were circulated to internal staff to assess their views on the impact of important changes the CTR introduces on the organisation's processes.
resultsThe average reply time to comments from regulators was 27.5 days, which is longer than the 12-day time limit required by CTR, which indicates that the organisation's processes require re-optimization to allow efficient activation of trials compliant with the new legislation. The majority of the staff that completed the questionnaire assessed the impact the CTR would have on the organisation to be positive. Finally, there was a large consensus about the changes related to the submission timelines, transition period and the user management of the Clinical Trial Information System (CTIS) having a very important impact on the organisation as a whole. Participants referred to the streamlined process of a clinical trial in different countries as foreseen in the CTR, as an aspect that would benefit the organisation. DISCUSSION: For all retrospectively studied timelines, the average timelines to reply combined for competent authorities (CA) and ethics committees (EC) were longer than the 12 days allowed under the CTR. EORTC will have to adapt internal processes to meet the time limit imposed by the CTR without compromising its scientific integrity. The questionnaire respondents had the required expertise to provide an opinion on the CTR's impact on the organisation. There was a large consensus about the changes relating to the submission timelines having a very important impact on the organisation. This observation is in line with the results of the retrospective part of this study.
conclusionBased on the results of the retrospective and prospective parts of the study, it is clear that the shorter reply timelines are the main factor that will affect the organisation. EORTC has spent significant resources in adapting its processes to comply with the CTR's new requirements. Experience with the first studies under the new regulation can be utilized to implement further process adaptations.
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.