ReviewTherapeutic innovation & regulatory science2026
Implementation of the EU Clinical Trials Regulation and CTIS in Europe: a Comparative Regulatory Analysis (2013-2024).
Review in Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEurope's relative share of global clinical trial activity declined between 2013 and 2024 during a period that encompassed implementation of the EU Clinical Trials Regulation (CTR) and the Clinical Trials Information System (CTIS).
objectivesTo examine clinical trial activity and early implementation of the CTR and CTIS in Europe, with particular attention to regulatory harmonisation, operational implementation, and institutional capacity.
methodsWe conducted a comparative regulatory and policy analysis using secondary aggregate data from international registries, regulatory and institutional documents, sectoral reports, and peer-reviewed literature. The United States was used as the principal external comparator, while Spain and Germany provided contrasting European cases. Analyses were descriptive and no trial-level registry merging, inferential modelling, or causal analysis was performed.
resultsThe CTR and CTIS established a common legal framework, a single digital submission pathway, and coordinated assessment procedures across the EEA. Early implementation evidence nevertheless indicates substantial administrative workload and persistent operational heterogeneity across Member States and sponsor types. Europe's declining relative global position reflected differential international growth rather than absolute contraction, with variation by development phase and therapeutic area. Divergent trajectories in Spain and Germany under the same European regulatory framework further highlighted the relevance of country-specific institutional and operational factors.
conclusionsThe CTR and CTIS represent a major restructuring of European clinical trial governance, but regulatory harmonisation alone appears insufficient to ensure operational convergence or long-term competitiveness. Their practical impact depends on institutional capacity, digital readiness, regulatory expertise, and national implementation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42837073What 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.