Cited by 1,035Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsEthics in Clinical ResearchPharmaceutical industry and healthcare

Factors associated with clinical trials that fail and opportunities for improving the likelihood of success: A review

Open access
Fogel, David B.·2018·Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications

Abstract

Clinical trials are time consuming, expensive, and often burdensome on patients. Clinical trials can fail for many reasons. This survey reviews many of these reasons and offers insights on opportunities for improving the likelihood of creating and executing successful clinical trials. Literature from the past 30 years was reviewed for relevant data. Common patterns in reported successful trials are identified, including factors regarding the study site, study coordinator/investigator, and the effects on participating patients. Specific instances where artificial intelligence can help improve clinical trials are identified.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.conctc.2018.08.001

Cites

123 of 123 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [60]Institute of Medicine Committee on Cancer Clinical Trials 2010 National Academic Press Washington D.C
  2. [61]Institute of Medicine Public Engagement and Clinical Trials: New Models and Disruptive Technologies. Work Shop Summary 2012 The National Academies Press Washington, DC 22514814

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fogel, D. B.
Corresponding author
Fogel, David B.
Venue
Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-09
Volume
11
Pages
156-164
ISSN
2451-8654 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2885447570
Cited by
1,035
References
123
Citations by year
2026: 115 · 2025: 156 · 2024: 198 · 2023: 167 · 2022: 142 · 2021: 164 · 2020: 68 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 2
FWCI
8.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare
Keywords
clinical trial failure, study coordinators, patient burden, artificial intelligence in clinical trials

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review