ArticleJAMA network open2025
Hurdles for the Delivery of Multinational Randomized Clinical Trials.
Article in JAMA network open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Characteristics of Authorized Clinical Trials in Peru, 2017-2025: A National Registry-Based Study.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2026Article
- Error in Figure.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Considerations raised during the regulatory and ethics review of platform clinical trials in infectious diseases.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2026Article
- Emergency consent pathways in acute ischemic stroke trials: determinants, consequences, and stakeholder attitudes-an evidence-mapping study.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Logistical Challenges in Platform Randomized Trials - Operational Realities That Curb the Promise of Efficiency.Clinical epidemiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedError in Figure.2026
Authors and funding
24 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Ethical, administrative, regulatory, and logistical (EARL) procedures can hamper clinical trial delivery. Quantification of these hurdles is rare, prohibiting identification of areas for improvement. Objective: To identify and quantify EARL hurdles in trial delivery before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used data from the ongoing Randomized Embedded Multifactorial Adaptive Platform Trial for Community-Acquired Pneumonia to enable comparison of EARL procedures for multiple protocols across 19 European countries in the pre-COVID-19 pandemic (February 19, 2016 to March 10, 2020) and COVID-19 pandemic (March 11, 2020, to May 4, 2023) periods. Data were analyzed from November 2024 to March 2025 with contracts and protocol submissions as the units of analysis. Main Outcome and Measures: Time to (1) site contract completion, (2) regulatory and ethical approval (TTA), and (3) first patient in (FPI). The UK was compared with non-UK countries because of its distinct research infrastructure. Results: There were 257 fully signed first contracts with study sites for analysis. In the UK, contract completion times decreased by 97% (95% CI, 95% to 98%), from a median (IQR) of 196 (154 to 250) days in the pre-COVID-19 pandemic period to 5 (1 to 11) days during the COVID-19 pandemic. In non-UK countries, median (IQR) contract completion times were 224 (119 to 412) days and 183 (62 to 291) days before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, respectively (relative difference, -18%; 95% CI, -43% to 52%). In total, 44 interventions in 16 domains were submitted, yielding 232 protocol approvals for analysis. During the COVID-19 pandemic, median (IQR) TTA was 8 (5 to 31) days in the UK and 115 (47 to 103) days in non-UK countries (median difference, 107 days; 95% CI, 76 to 123 days), with large variation across non-UK countries. Time between approval and FPI during the COVID-19 pandemic was, on average, 3 months faster in the UK compared with non-UK countries (median difference, 90 days; 95% CI, 42 to 141 days). Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that EARL procedures were lengthy and variable between countries, reflecting different interpretations of trial regulations, with faster processes in the UK. These findings underscore the need to streamline processes across European countries to improve trial efficiency, in particular during future public health emergencies such as pandemics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.