Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40369668›Full record

ArticleTrials2025

Clinical trial budgeting approaches in Switzerland-a meta-research study.

Alexandra Griessbach, Malena Chiaborelli, Klaus Ehrlich, Regina Grossmann, María De Medina Redondo, Aurélie Fayet, Reinhard Maier, Sven Trelle, Angèle Gayet-Ageron, Alessandro Ceschi and 3 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Clinical research in private hospitals: a perspective.Journal of translational medicine · 2026
    Review
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

13 authors.

Alexandra GriessbachCLEAR-Methods Center, Division of Clinical Epidemiology, Department of Clinical Research, University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland. alexandranatacha.griessbach@usb.ch.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3726-1856
Malena ChiaborelliCLEAR-Methods Center, Division of Clinical Epidemiology, Department of Clinical Research, University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Klaus EhrlichDepartment of Clinical Research, University Hospital Basel and University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Regina GrossmannClinical Trials Center, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
María De Medina RedondoClinical Trials Center, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Aurélie FayetUniversity Hospital Lausanne and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Reinhard MaierClinical Trials Unit, Kantonsspital St. Gallen, Medizinisches Forschungszentrum, St. Gallen, Switzerland.
Sven TrelleDepartment of Clinical Research, Clinical Trials Unit Bern, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Angèle Gayet-AgeronCentre de Recherche Clinique, Methodological Support Unit, Geneva University Hospitals & University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Alessandro CeschiClinical Trial Unit, Medical Education and Research Area, Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale, Lugano, Switzerland.
Benjamin Speich *CLEAR-Methods Center, Division of Clinical Epidemiology, Department of Clinical Research, University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Matthias Briel *CLEAR-Methods Center, Division of Clinical Epidemiology, Department of Clinical Research, University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
MAking Randomized Trials Affordable (MARTA) Group

Funding

Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung 320030_188802/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundConducting clinical trials is resource demanding. Mirroring challenges experienced elsewhere, clinical trials conducted in Switzerland often face overoptimistic budget estimations and insufficient funding, leading to trial discontinuation and research waste. As a first step to address this problem, we investigated the current approaches to estimate clinical trial budgets in Switzerland.

methodsWe collected and examined the budgeting tools and approaches for clinical trials provided by the seven Swiss clinical trial units (CTUs) and the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF). We compared available approaches to the publicly accessible budgeting tool of the Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE). For each approach, we collected data about user-testing, the availability of prespecified cost items, and estimates on cost ranges.

resultsWe found substantial heterogeneity in budget calculation approaches used by Swiss CTUs. None of the currently used tools and approaches provided by the seven CTUs or the SNSF was user-tested and neither supplied cost ranges for investigators to rely on. Five CTU tools included a detailed list of cost items. The SNSF provided a costing template with broad categories and is available for open grant applications only. One CTU tool was publicly available. The publicly available Belgian KCE tool was developed with user feedback and provided a detailed list of cost items, some cost ranges, and an instruction manual.

conclusionStakeholders should consider improving budgeting practices in Switzerland by standardizing cost items and user-testing approaches. The continuously improved Belgian KCE tool could provide orientation.

Indexed as

BudgetsClinical Trials as TopicResearch Support as TopicHumansSwitzerlandClinical trial budgetingClinical trialsTrial costsTrial funding

Identifiers

PMID40369668
PMCPMC12079863

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.