ArticleBMC medical research methodology2025
Development of a protocol complexity tool: a framework designed to stimulate discussion and simplify study design.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2025. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOver the last decade, the pharmaceutical industry has witnessed longer, more complex, and expensive clinical trials. This complexity contributes to delays in clinical trial implementation, execution, monitoring, recruitment, data cleaning, and interpretation. Our aim was to develop a protocol complexity tool (PCT) to simplify clinical trial execution without compromising science or quality.
methodsUsing a collaborative design process, a taskforce comprising 20 cross-functional experts in clinical trial design and execution developed a PCT, between June 2021 and December 2022 and comprising 26 questions across 5 domains (operational execution, regulatory oversight, patient burden, site burden and study design). Individual domain scores and total complexity score (TCS) were calculated, and agreed by consensus, for 16 pre-identified phase II-IV difficult clinical trials across 3 therapeutic areas. Change in score was assessed post-PCT pass through. The relationship between TCS and key trial indicators (i.e. time-to-site activation and participant enrolment) was assessed for 26 studies by correlation analysis.
resultsPost-PCT pass through, the TCS was reduced in 12 trials (75%), remained the same in 3 trials (18.8%) and increased in 1 trial (6.2%). Complexity was most notably decreased in the operational execution and site burden domains, decreasing in 50% and 43.8% of assessed trials, respectively. Time-to-site activation and participant enrolment positively correlated with TCS, reaching statistical significance at 75% site activation (rho = 0.61; p = 0.005; n = 19) and 25% participant recruitment (rho = 0.59; p = 0.012; n = 17).
conclusionsWe have developed a Protocol Complexity Tool to objectively measure the complexity of a study protocol consistently and transparently. The PCT is capable of driving simplification, enhancing collaboration, and creating additional confidence in trial designs. In the future, we envision the tool will support earlier discussions to develop protocols that are simpler to execute and more cost-effective.
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.