Cited by 104Health and Medical Research ImpactsPharmaceutical industry and healthcareEthics in Clinical Research

Conducting clinical trials—costs, impacts, and the value of clinical trials networks: A scoping review

Bentley, Colene, Cressman, Sonya, van der Hoek, Kim, Arts, Karen, Dancey, Janet, Peacock, Stuart·2019·Clinical Trials

Abstract

Background: A significant barrier to conducting clinical trials is their high cost, which is driven primarily by the time and resources required to activate trials and reach accrual targets. The high cost of running trials has a substantial impact on their long-term feasibility and the type of clinical research undertaken. Methods: A scoping review of the empirical literature on the costs associated with conducting clinical trials was undertaken for the years 2001–2015. Five reference databases were consulted to elicit how trials costs are presented in the literature. A review instrument was developed to extract the content of in-scope papers. Findings were characterized by date and place of publication, clinical disease area, and network/cooperative group designation, when specified. Costs were captured and grouped by patient accrual and management, infrastructure, and the opportunity costs associated with industry funding for trials research. Cost impacts on translational research and health systems were also captured, as were recommendations to reduce trial expenditures. Since articles often cited multiple costs, multiple cost coding was used during data extraction to capture the range and frequency of costs. Results: A total of 288 empirical articles were included. The distribution of reported costs was: patient management and accrual costs (132 articles), infrastructure costs (118 articles) and the opportunity costs of industry sponsorship (72 articles). 221 articles reported on the impact of undertaking costly trials on translational research and health systems; of these, the most frequently reported consequences were to research integrity (52% of articles), research capacity (36% of articles) and running low-value trials (34% of articles). 254 articles provided recommendations to reduce trial costs; of these, the most frequently reported recommendations related to improvements in: operational efficiencies (33% of articles); patient accrual (24% of articles); funding for trials and transparency in trials reporting (18% of articles, each). Conclusion: Key findings from the review are: 1) delayed trial activation has costs to budgets and research; 2) poor accrual leads to low-value trials and wasted resources; 3) the pharmaceutical industry can be a pragmatic, if problematic, partner in clinical research; 4) organizational know-how and successful research collaboration are benefits of network/cooperative groups; and 5) there are spillover benefits of clinical trials to healthcare systems, including better health outcomes, enhanced research capacity, and drug cost avoidance. There is a need for more economic evaluations of the benefits of clinical research, such as health system use (or avoidance) and health outcomes in cities and health authorities with institutions that conduct clinical research, to demonstrate the affordability of clinical trials, despite their high cost.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1740774518820060

Cites

73 of 73 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bentley, C., Cressman, S., van der Hoek, K., Arts, K., Dancey, J., & Peacock, S.
Affiliations
  • BC Cancer Agency (CA)
  • Department of Cancer Control Research, BC Cancer, Vancouver, BC, Canada
  • Ontario Institute for Cancer Research (CA)
Corresponding author
Bentley, Colene
Venue
Clinical Trials
Published
2019-01-10
Volume
16
Issue
2
Pages
183-193
ISSN
  • 1740-7745 (ISSN-L)
  • 1740-7753
OpenAlex
W2909678312
Cited by
104
References
73
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 3
FWCI
1.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Trials (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute (2015-703549)
  • Ontario Institute for Cancer Research (3CTN-ARCC-BCCA)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Health and Medical Research Impacts
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
Keywords
clinical trial costs, clinical trial networks, cooperative groups, patient accrual, opportunity cost, industry funding, research integrity, research capacity, translational research, health care system, cost reduction, trial funding, research collaboration, health outcomes, operational efficiency
MeSH terms
Clinical Trials as Topic, Cooperative Behavior, Delivery of Health Care, Drug Industry, Humans, Time Factors, Models, Economic, Biomedical Research, Translational Research, Biomedical

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