ArticleGlobal & regional health technology assessment
Non-profit research: an insight into the management and monitoring of clinical trials in Italy.
Article in Global & regional health technology assessment. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: In January 2022, Italy fully implemented EU Regulation No. 536/2014, revolutionizing the national framework for clinical research on medicinal products. This marked a critical shift for non-profit sponsors, who are now required to align with high-quality standards and ICH-GCP guidelines. Understanding their level of compliance is essential to identify systemic barriers and areas needing support. Methods: In March 2024, a 50-item anonymous pilot survey was distributed via social media to assess the operational and regulatory compliance of non-profit sponsors managing clinical trials in Italy. The survey focused on three domains: data management, risk assessment, and monitoring practices. Responses were collected from 32 non-profit sponsors. Results: The findings revealed substantial compliance gaps. Approximately 91% (n = 29) of respondents reported they rarely or never prepare core GCP-required documents, including Data Management Plans and Statistical Analysis Plans. Only 25% (n = 8) routinely conduct risk assessments before protocol drafting. Monitoring visits, either remote or on-site, were performed by 63% (n = 20) of sponsors. Among those not conducting on-site monitoring (n = 14), the primary constraints reported were staff shortages (29%, n = 4) and financial limitations (57%, n = 8). Alarmingly, within this same subgroup, 29% (n = 4) believed that on-site monitoring was unnecessary, despite regulatory mandates. This attitude extended to remote monitoring activities as well. Conclusions: The survey highlights major challenges faced by non-profit sponsors in meeting regulatory expectations. Limited resources and a lack of trained personnel significantly impair compliance with GCP standards. To ensure research integrity and patient safety, targeted support strategies and policy interventions are urgently needed to empower non-profit research in adapting to the evolving regulatory landscape.
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.