Project description
Strategies to combat research waste in clinical trials
The non-publication of clinical trial results wastes an estimated $85 billion annually in medical research funding and skews the evidence since negative findings are often unreported. This can lead to costly errors in healthcare. While safeguards in clinical trials have improved, the effectiveness of measures to combat research waste remains largely unstudied. Supported by the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions programme, the ICTR project will evaluate three strategies to reduce research waste and publication bias in clinical trials. Its findings will enhance the reliability of scientific evidence in both natural and social sciences. The project will determine which methods effectively minimise research waste.
Objective
This proposal will rigorously evaluate three approaches to reducing research waste and publication bias in clinical trials. The findings will provide a firm evidence base to inform efforts to improve the robustness of scientific evidence across the natural and social sciences.
Non-publication of results has been estimated to directly waste $85 billion per year in medical research funding. Gaps left by unreported clinical trial results systematically distort the scientific evidence base because negative findings are especially likely to remain unreported.
Health systems and insurers are often unable to determine how safe, effective and cost-effective treatments really are, leading to costly procurement missteps and suboptimal and sometimes dangerous patient care. For example, governments worldwide spent over $18 billion on the drug Tamiflu before the previously hidden results of several unsuccessful clinical trials emerged.
Today, research waste safeguards for clinical trials are stronger and more advanced than in any other area of research. Multiple approaches to tackling the twin problems of research waste and publication bias have been pioneered in the clinical trials space and are now being adopted in other branches of science.
However, it remains unclear which of these measures are effective because their impact has rarely been studied in a systematic and rigorous manner. This undermines efforts to improve the robustness of research across the natural and social sciences.
This proposal will fill an important knowledge gap by providing robust evidence on which approaches to reducing research waste and curbing publication bias are effective. Breaking new methodological ground, it will answer three questions:
Can stronger funder safeguards reduce research waste?
Can sending reminder messages to research institutions reduce research waste?
What reminder messages to principal investigators reduce research waste most?
Keywords
Project’s keywords as indicated by the project coordinator. Not to be confused with the EuroSciVoc taxonomy (Fields of science)
Project’s keywords as indicated by the project coordinator. Not to be confused with the EuroSciVoc taxonomy (Fields of science)
Programme(s)
Multi-annual funding programmes that define the EU’s priorities for research and innovation.
Multi-annual funding programmes that define the EU’s priorities for research and innovation.
-
HORIZON.1.2 - Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA)
MAIN PROGRAMME
See all projects funded under this programme
Topic(s)
Calls for proposals are divided into topics. A topic defines a specific subject or area for which applicants can submit proposals. The description of a topic comprises its specific scope and the expected impact of the funded project.
Calls for proposals are divided into topics. A topic defines a specific subject or area for which applicants can submit proposals. The description of a topic comprises its specific scope and the expected impact of the funded project.
Funding Scheme
Funding scheme (or “Type of Action”) inside a programme with common features. It specifies: the scope of what is funded; the reimbursement rate; specific evaluation criteria to qualify for funding; and the use of simplified forms of costs like lump sums.
Funding scheme (or “Type of Action”) inside a programme with common features. It specifies: the scope of what is funded; the reimbursement rate; specific evaluation criteria to qualify for funding; and the use of simplified forms of costs like lump sums.
HORIZON-TMA-MSCA-PF-EF - HORIZON TMA MSCA Postdoctoral Fellowships - European Fellowships
See all projects funded under this funding scheme
Call for proposal
Procedure for inviting applicants to submit project proposals, with the aim of receiving EU funding.
Procedure for inviting applicants to submit project proposals, with the aim of receiving EU funding.
(opens in new window) HORIZON-MSCA-2023-PF-01
See all projects funded under this callCoordinator
Net EU financial contribution. The sum of money that the participant receives, deducted by the EU contribution to its linked third party. It considers the distribution of the EU financial contribution between direct beneficiaries of the project and other types of participants, like third-party participants.
171 77 STOCKHOLM
Sweden
The total costs incurred by this organisation to participate in the project, including direct and indirect costs. This amount is a subset of the overall project budget.