Lay Summaries of Clinical Study Results: An Overview

Lay summaries help to provide transparency and understanding of clinical study results to the general public

Benefits of lay summaries and how to write one

The below article was originally published online: 14 June 2019

Amber Barnes1, Susan Patrick © The Author(s) 2019


The European Union Clinical Trials Regulation (EU CTR) 536/2014 includes a requirement for the submission of lay summaries. Study participants, advocacy groups, and, to a lesser extent, the general public have called for greater transparency in their quest for information on clinical studies. As a complement to other forms of clinical study disclosure such as registry postings and scientific publications, lay summaries may aid in the transparency of a sponsor’s clinical study results, thereby promoting trust, partnership, and patient engagement throughout the clinical study process. The data transparency field is changing rapidly; therefore, data owners should strive to stay abreast of the changes and deliver meaningful tools to their study participants and the public. Points to consider when developing lay summaries of clinical study results include regulatory drivers, the target audience, communication of complex data in a lay manner, and efficient processes for the development of lay summaries within one’s company.

Lay summaries help to provide transparency and understanding to the general public

Plain Language Summary

There is a rule in Europe that clinical studies (experiments in humans) must have a summary written in plain language. Summaries written in plain language help people who are not scientists or doctors understand complex medical information. People who participate in clinical studies, and others, may want to know information about clinical study results. Lay summaries are a way to share clinical study results, but they do not replace other ways that information is shared. Lay summary writers must think about how they can help readers understand the information. It is hard to describe the results of clinical studies in a way that everyone can understand. This article gives some ideas to think about when writing lay summaries.

Key Points
Lay summaries of clinical study results are a complement to other forms of clinical study disclosure that aid in the understanding of complex clinical study results.
The initial requirement for lay summaries began as a result of the EU Clinical Trial Regulation; however, evolving regulations and policies around the globe are shaping the future of clinical study disclosure.
Ensuring patient value should be of paramount importance when developing lay summaries.

1. What are Lay Summaries and Why are They Needed?

Lay summaries (also called layperson summaries, plain language summaries, lay language summaries, simple summaries, and trial results summaries) are plain language descriptions of the design and aggregate results of individual clinical studies (Fig.1)

Example of a lay summary

Fig. 1 Excerpted pages from a published lay summary

Lay summaries are one way for industry to provide greater transparency to those interested in learning about clinical study results [2]. These documents are written specifically for study participants and the general public who have an interest in clinical study results, but who may have limited health literacy or scientific expertise. Health literacy is defined as the degree to which individuals have the capacity to obtain, process, and understand basic health information and services needed to make appropriate health decisions [3]. The goal of a lay summary is to aid study participants and the general public in understanding clinical study results. Not only does this effort help to demystify the clinical study process but it also provides the main results of clinical studies in a manner directed specifically towards people with low health literacy. The target audience is any person interested in research, and, as such, the audience is broad and may include study participants, healthcare professionals, caregivers, and the general public.

Companies providing lay summaries in advance of requirements are communicating respect for the needs and desires of the community

The data transparency field is changing rapidly, with recognition that the desires of patients and the general public may go beyond those driven by regulatory requirements. Although regulatory agencies do not currently require submission of lay summaries, some agencies have provided additional statements on the topic, as summarized below, in preparation for when the regulations come into effect. The commitment of a sponsor company to provide lay summaries in advance of regulatory requirements provides a meaningful way of communicating respect for the needs and desires of the community, particularly study participants.

The push for increased transparency in the clinical study space has presented industry and academia with an interesting choice—to proactively engage or only meet regulatory requirements. Currently, some transparency activities are not required per regulations and are implemented solely based on a company’s own policies on clinical transparency and data sharing. For example, the proactive release of clinical documents and datasets can occur through various mechanisms such as portals (e.g.,, registration and results disclosure (e.g., or posting lay summaries of clinical study results to publicly available websites. Other transparency activities are regulatory driven, such as the release of redacted or anonymized documents for European Medicines Agency (EMA) Policy 0070.

2. What are the Current Regulatory Requirements?

2.1 European Medicines Agency: EU Clinical Trial Regulation 536/2014

The EMA initiated the call for the submission of lay summaries through the European Union Clinical Trials Regulation (EU CTR) 536/2014. Among other elements described in the regulation, sponsors must submit a summary of the results of the clinical study, together with a summary and the Clinical Study Report (CSR), irrespective of the outcome of the study. The summary must be provided in a ‘format understandable to laypersons’, with posting to the portal 1 year after the end of the trial (EoT) for studies in adults, and 6 months after the EoT for studies in the pediatric population, in all the EU languages in which the study was conducted (Fig. 2).

EU Clinical Trial Regulation 536/2014 potential timeline
Fig. 2 EU Clinical Trial Regulation 536/2014potential timeline. EoT end of trial (defined as the last visit of the last participant in all concerned member states, or at a later point in time as defined in the protocol), LS lay summary, Peds pediatric patients, mos months

Once the regulation is in application, all new interventional clinical studies will need to comply; however, the regulation includes three phases of implementation. Assuming the dates currently projected by the EMA, this would provide the following timescale for sponsors to submit lay summaries:

  • Phase 1: A 1-year introductory period where regulations are optional.
  • Phase 2: Spanning the second and third year of the transitory period; the regulation will be mandatory for new studies.
  • Phase 3: After the 3-year transitory period described
    above, the regulation will be mandatory for all studies (both ongoing and new studies).

To read this entire article you can download the PDF here:

Check out these 5 key areas for CRO process improvement

Hot Topics in Medical Affairs

5 Key Areas for CRO Process Improvement

Insight into 5 key areas where CRO’s should consider ongoing process improvement.

An article from the May 2018 addition of the Clinical Researcher seems especially relevant as the students of the current 2018 cohort are wrapping up Module 4, Clinical Trials: from concept to clinical study report. The article “Improving Clinical Research Trials: Best Practice Do’s and Don’ts for Managing Business Operations” (Ted Finlan, 2018), Finlan provides insight into 5 key areas where CRO’s should consider ongoing process improvement.

1.      Regulatory Compliance

Pitfall: Failure to understand and plan compliance timelines

Internal and external regulatory groups have varying deadlines, with timelines that often intersect and overlap. For instance, approval for a drug import license can vary from country to country by a matter of weeks or months. Without a clear understanding of approval processes and their impact on the critical path, a study is at high risk of schedule slippage.

Best practice: Clear project planning blueprint

CROs should ensure clarity and alignment between staff responsible for designing a regulatory blueprint (e.g., ethics committees, institutional review boards, etc.) and those responsible for building, managing, and communicating schedules. When approval processes are clearly mapped out to achieve the most efficient response, CROs can expedite the commencement of work.

2.      Information Flow and Governance

Pitfall: Lack of communication between departments and across organizations

Every department maintains critical information that other departments can benefit from. For instance, the Quality unit may be the first to become aware of new clinical trial regulations that impact the study start-up processes. If this information is not shared across the organization, various issues may arise, such as compromised core processes and missed timelines, jeopardizing overall delivery of the study.

This risk can be especially acute when working with new partners or third parties. Misplaced assumptions about “who knows what” or misaligned processes can creep in and drive quality issues or delays if initial and ongoing communication between these entities is lacking.

Best practice: Purposeful communication and collaboration

Clarity is a best practice when it comes to communication, and standard operating procedures should address optimal information flow. This requires every team member and site to have a clear understanding of their own responsibilities, as well as the roles and responsibilities of those adjacent to them. Processes should lend to proactive knowledge sharing as departments recognize how information intersects and how teams can fully leverage intelligence.

Mutually agreed-upon terms of engagement between sponsors, CROs, and vendors can also circumvent downstream quality, compliance, or timeline issues. These communication plans should ensure collaboration across all facets of the project.

3.      Getting a Fast Start

Pitfall: Final protocol delays

Delayed availability of the final protocol is one of the most significant stumbling blocks to patient recruitment. The final protocol is a critical path deliverable that impacts trial supply, site activation, and, of course, recruitment.

In fact, quite often, important work will begin before the final protocol is available. Proceeding “at risk” can lead to rework that can increase the cost and duration of start-up, and, in some cases, could lead to losing access to desirable clinical investigators or institutions. All of which impacts the ability to recruit and can affect the pace of recruitment throughout the study.

Best practice: Transparency and communication

Visibility into the availability of the protocol and expected impacts can significantly mitigate the impacts of delays. By actively planning for the delays and communicating proactively with the sites, a CRO can maintain engagement and be far more agile in adapting to change. This requires proactive communication and strong collaboration between the sponsor and CRO to make the changes needed for strategies, systems, and plans to run as smoothly and quickly as possible.

4.      Budgeting

Pitfall: Improper management of uncertainty

A key characteristic of research is uncertainty. Unfortunately, that reality can make the budgeting process a series of “best guesses.” As noted above, delays in protocol availability can delay studies for unpredictable periods of time, as can the availability of investigational product (IP) supplies.

These, and other unknowns can lead to rework, changing of staff, and other impacts that affect the overall budget, including direct CRO services, grants, and third-party costs. Without effectively forecasting communication and change order processes, studies can run into financial trouble, including an inability to compensate investigators or pay third-party costs.

Best practice: Effective change management

In an ideal world, any CRO would like to minimize risk by matching the level of uncertainty with the right amount of “insurance,” often referred to as a reserve. This is rarely possible, yet the most effective CROs move forward with a considered, deliberate approach for “out of scope” work and a smooth change order process.

Another approach is to financially ensure alignment and motivation through targeted use of bonus clauses, incenting CRO performance by aligning its financial benefit with the goals of the sponsor. For example, hitting aggressive recruitment and retention targets.

It is important to remember that these approaches are two-way streets. Change orders for unused/unrequired spending result in savings for the sponsor and should be communicated just as proactively. As this may be driven by faster recruiting or other “good news,” it may appear to some that the CRO is being punished for exceptional performance. This is another good reason to align incentives and bonuses to match the sponsor’s desired outcomes.

5.      Staff Workflows

Pitfall: Finding projects short-staffed

Inefficiency is always a concern, and the ability to efficiently allocate staff is a critical factor for service companies. A lack of consistency across organizations, various conflicting or ambiguous definitions for terms and data, misaligned assumptions, and an absence of clarity across processes and organizations can leave projects short of key staff, driving delays, quality issues, and other delivery problems.

Best practice: Aligning key resources

A holistic view of processes and clear data definition across the enterprise is key. This is usually attacked by mapping and integrating core processes, and in the case of services staffing, this is often referred to as the “quote to cash” process. As it sounds, this process takes the proposal and bidding activities into consideration, where staff capacity transitions to the reservation of specific individuals.

Once the formal assignment is in place and resources are used, the process moves into the billing and receivables portion. By clearly illustrating the processes and agreeing to common data definitions and metrics, the CRO can gain greater visibility into its “factory” and more efficiently serve its customers.

To sum up, “Good Business Operations = Effective Trials.”  Finlan, emphasizes that as the clinical research environment continues to grow and change it becomes ever important to ensure a high-quality design to overcome these common pitfalls and ensure success!

Want to learn more about how to be an effective and more productive CRO?

The International Federation of Associations of Pharmaceutical Physicians and Pharmaceutical Medicine (IFAPP) Academy provides online Continuing Professional Development for Medical Affairs Professionals.

The IFAPP Academy is a non-profit organization whose mission is to promote, develop, and implement educational activities that support Pharmaceutical Medicine by enhancing the knowledge, expertise, and skills of pharmaceutical physicians and medicines development scientists worldwide. Partnered with King’s College London, the Academy offers Professional Certification for students successfully completing the course. Click here to learn more about the benefits of Professional Certification from the IFAPP Academy.



  1. Ted Finlan, P. C. (2018, May 15). Improving Clinical Research Trials: Best Practice Do’s and Don’ts for Managing Business Operations. Clinical Researcher, 32(5). Retrieved July 7, 2018, from