Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • News & Views
  • Published:

Clinical trials

'Clinical integration': laudable, but challenging

Nature Reviews Urology volume 6, pages 297–298 (2009)Cite this article

We need a fresh approach to conducting clinical trials. Our present system is in serious need of an overhaul. Regulatory guidelines need to be re-evaluated, as they present significant barriers and cause delays.

Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Access through your institution

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Vickers, A. J. & Scardino, P. T. The clinically-integrated randomized trial: proposed novel method for conducting large trials at low cost. Trials 10, 14 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Dilts, D. M. et al. Processes to activate phase III clinical trials in a cooperative oncology group: the Case of Cancer and Leukemia Group B. J. Clin. Oncol. 24, 4553–4557 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Tejeda, H. A. et al. Representation of African-Americans, Hispanics, and whites in National Cancer Institute cancer treatment trials. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 88, 812–816 (1996).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Califf, R. M. Clinical trials bureaucracy: unintended consequences of well-intentioned policy. Clin. Trials 3, 496–502 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. National Cancer Institute Getting connected with caBIG [online] (2009).

  6. Velos [online] (2009).

  7. Michigan Institute for Clinical & Health Research Velos eResearch [online] (2009).

  8. Gwaltney, C. J., Shields, A. L. & Shiffman, S. Equivalence of electronic and paper-and-pencil administration of patient-reported outcome measures: a meta-analytic review. Value Health 11, 322–333 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Coons, S. J. et al. Recommendations on evidence needed to support measurement equivalence between electronic and paper-based patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures: ISPOR ePRO Good Research Practices Task Force Report. Value Health 12, 1–11 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, University of Colorado, Denver, CO, USA

    E. David Crawford

  2. Southwest Oncology Group Statistical Center, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA

    Catherine M. Tangen

Authors
  1. E. David Crawford
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Catherine M. Tangen
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to E. David Crawford.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Crawford, E., Tangen, C. 'Clinical integration': laudable, but challenging. Nat Rev Urol 6, 297–298 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrurol.2009.97

Download citation

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrurol.2009.97

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing