In this video interview, Kent Thoelke, CEO of Paradigm Health, explains why patient cost barriers and site infrastructure challenges must be solved together to close the participation gap in community and rural clinical trials.
|Articles|May 1, 2011
- Applied Clinical Trials-05-01-2011
- Volume 20
- Issue 5
Study Completion Times
Author(s)TTC
Improved study completion times represents one of the most critical areas for clinical development organizations. Previous TTC research has demonstrated that paying sites more on a cost per patient basis does not improve study completions times.
Advertisement
Improved study completion times represents one of the most critical areas for clinical development organizations. Previous TTC research has demonstrated that paying sites more on a cost per patient basis does not improve study completions times.
Other variables, such as study and protocol design, or whether a CRO or sponsor directly runs the fieldwork may be important. According to
Still, study design factors such as the number of countries in a study, had clear affects on completion times. There is, however, no difference whether a CRO or sponsor company manages the study. —TTC (for more information, contact
Articles in this issue
over 15 years ago
Applied Clinical Trials Digital Edition - May 2011over 15 years ago
Applied Clinical Trials Digital Edition - May 2011, Supplementover 15 years ago
GCLP: an Industry Perspectiveover 15 years ago
Innovation is in for EU's Healthcare Systemover 15 years ago
Business and News Update May 2011over 15 years ago
Innovation in Ethical Reviewover 15 years ago
Patients are not Schrödinger's Catsover 15 years ago
Protocol Amendments: a Costly Solutionover 15 years ago
ACT Supplement Cover Imageover 15 years ago
Translating Clinical DataAdvertisement
Related to this article
Patients don’t experience primary endpoints, so trials that stop at biomarkers and rigid rating scales risk declaring success while leaving daily burden untouched, and digital tools only deliver meaningful evidence when they are co-designed with patients and deployed with restraint.
Aardvark released exploratory data from its stopped Phase 3 HERO trial in Prader-Willi syndrome after FDA lifted the hold, and plans a redesigned Phase 3.
Clinical trials capture data faster than ever, but the real bottleneck is the distance between data capture and a decision teams can trust.
In today’s ACT Brief, we examine why the future of AI in trials is a trusted orchestration system rather than a single model, how coordinators rate eSource-enabled workflows, and what a bipartisan bill proposes for reusable trial networks.
The Faster Clinical Trials Act would create an FDA Center for Clinical Trial Innovation and aims to cut trial costs and enrollment time by at least 30%.
Standardized measurement across five oncology centers found that clinical research coordinators rated eSource-enabled workflows positively (Overall Mean Satisfaction 5.79 of 7), with reduced manual entry and electronic data transfer earning strong marks, while perceived reduction in sponsor and monitor queries lagged as the one domain below threshold.
In this video interview, Rajneesh Patil, global head of AI, digital, and innovation in clinical development at Syneos Health, describes the industry’s trajectory toward a unified intelligence orchestration environment—and explains why the future isn’t one model that knows everything, but a trusted system that brings the right evidence to the right human decision.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Trending on Applied Clinical Trials Online
1
Clinical Trials Do Not Have a Data Problem, They Have a Decision-Readiness Problem
2
Building Standardized Evidence for eSource-Enabled Clinical Trials: Multi-Site Validation of a Clinical Research Coordinator Satisfaction Methodology
3
Where the Industry Is Headed as Clinical, Operational, and Real-World Data Connect
4
ACT Brief: Orchestrated AI Clinical Environments, eSource Coordinator Satisfaction, and Faster Clinical Trials Act
5