Observational studyTrials2024
The clinical trial activation process: a case study of an Italian public hospital.
Observational study in Trials, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsIn order to make the centers more attractive to trial sponsors, in recent years, some research institutions around the world have pursued projects to reorganize the pathway of trial activation, developing new organizational models to improve the activation process and reduce its times. This study aims at analyzing and reorganizing the start-up phase of trials conducted at the Research and Innovation Department (DAIRI) of the Public Hospital of Alessandria (Italy).
methodsA project was carried out to reorganize the trial authorization process at DAIRI by involving the three facilities responsible for this pathway: clinical trial center (CTC), ethics committee secretariat (ESC), and administrative coordination (AC). Lean Thinking methodology was used with the A3 report tool, and the analysis was carried out by monitoring specific key performance indicators, derived from variables representing highlights of the trials' activation pathway. The project involved phases of analysis, implementation of identified countermeasures, and monitoring of timelines in eight 4-month periods. The overall mean and median values of studies activation times were calculated as well as the average times for each facility involved in the process.
resultsIn this study, 298 studies both sponsored by research associations and industry with both observational and interventional study design were monitored. The mean trial activation time was reduced from 218 days before the project to 56 days in the last period monitored. From the first to the last monitoring period, each facility involved achieved at least a halving of the average time required to carry out its activities in the clinical trials' activation pathway (CTC: 55 days vs 23, ECS: 25 days vs 8, AC 29 days vs 10). Average activation time for studies with agreement remains longer than those without agreement (100 days vs. 46).
conclusionsThe reorganization project emphasized the importance of having clinical and administrative staff specifically trained on the trial activation process. This reorganization led to the development of a standard operating procedure and a tool to monitor the time (KPIs of the process) that can also be implemented in other clinical centers.
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.