Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Oct 2;20(1):246.
doi: 10.1186/s12874-020-01125-5.

Impact of investigator initiated trials and industry sponsored trials on medical practice (IMPACT): rationale and study design

E Nury  1 , K Bischoff  2 , K Wollmann  2 , K Nitschke  2 , S Lohner  3 , M Schumacher  4 , G Rücker  4 , A Blümle  2   5
Affiliations

Impact of investigator initiated trials and industry sponsored trials on medical practice (IMPACT): rationale and study design

E Nury et al. BMC Med Res Methodol. .

Abstract

Background: The German Research Foundation (DFG) and the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) initiated large research programs to foster high quality clinical research in the academic area. These investigator initiated trials (IITs) cover important areas of medical research and often go beyond the scope of industry sponsored trials (ISTs). The purpose of this project was to understand to what extent results of randomized controlled IITs and ISTs have an impact on medical practice, measured by their availability for decisions in healthcare and their implementation in clinical practice. We aimed to determine study characteristics influencing a trial's impact such as type of sponsor and place of conduct. In this article, we describe the rationale and design of this project and present the characteristics of the trials included in our study cohort.

Methods: The research impact of the following sub-cohorts was compared: German IITs (funded by DFG and BMBF or by other German non-commercial organizations), international IITs (without German contribution), German ISTs, and international ISTs. Trials included were drawn from the DFG-/BMBF-Websites, the German Clinical Trials Register, and from ClinicalTrials.gov . Research impact was measured as follows: 1) proportion of published trials, 2) time to publication, 3) proportion of publications appropriately indexed in biomedical databases, 4) proportion of openly accessible publications, 5) broadness of publication's target group, 6) citation of publications by systematic reviews or meta-analyses, and 7) appearance of publications or citing systematic reviews or meta-analyses in clinical practice guidelines. We also aimed to identify study characteristics associated with the impact of trials.

Results: We included 691 trials: 120 German IITs, 200 International IITs, 171 German ISTs and 200 International ISTs. The median number of participants was 150, 30% were international trials and 70% national trials, 48% drug-trials and 52% non-drug trials. Overall, 72% of the trials had one pre-defined primary endpoint, 28% two or more (max. 36).

Conclusions: The results of this project deepen our understanding of the impact of biomedical research on clinical practice and healthcare policy, add important insights for the efficient allocation of scarce research resources and may facilitate providing accountability to the different stakeholders involved.

Keywords: Access to information; Clinical decision making; Clinical guidelines; Evidence-based medicine; Industry sponsored trials; Investigator initiated trials; Knowledge translation; Randomized controlled trial; Study registry; Systematic reviews.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Research Impact Assessment
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. BMJ. 1996;312(7023):71–72. doi: 10.1136/bmj.312.7023.71. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Rosenthal R. The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychol Bull. 1979;86(3):638–641. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638. - DOI
    1. Schmucker C, Schell LK, Portalupi S, Oeller P, Cabrera L, Bassler D, et al. Extent of non-publication in cohorts of studies approved by research ethics committees or included in trial registries. PLoS One. 2014;9(12):e114023. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0114023. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Dickersin K, Chalmers I. Recognising, investigating and dealing with incomplete and biased reporting of clinical research: from Francis bacon to the World Health Organisation: JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation. 2010. https://www.jameslindlibrary.org/articles/recognising-investigating-and-.... Accessed 5 Apr 2019. . - PubMed
    1. Eyding D, Lelgemann M, Grouven U, Härter M, Kromp M, Kaiser T, et al. Reboxetine for acute treatment of major depression: systematic review and meta-analysis of published and unpublished placebo and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor controlled trials. BMJ. 2010;341:c4737. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources