Dataset Information

Electronic data capture for registries and clinical trials in orthopaedic surgery: open source versus commercial systems.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Collection and analysis of clinical data can help orthopaedic surgeons to practice evidence based medicine. Spreadsheets and offline relational databases are prevalent, but not flexible, secure, workflow friendly and do not support the generation of standardized and interoperable data. Additionally these data collection applications usually do not follow a structured and planned approach which may result in failure to achieve the intended goal. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: Our purposes are (1) to provide a brief overview of EDC systems, their types, and related pros and cons as well as to describe commonly used EDC platforms and their features; and (2) describe simple steps involved in designing a registry/clinical study in DADOS P, an open source EDC system. WHERE ARE WE NOW?: Electronic data capture systems aimed at addressing these issues are widely being adopted at an institutional/national/international level but are lacking at an individual level. A wide array of features, relative pros and cons and different business models cause confusion and indecision among orthopaedic surgeons interested in implementing EDC systems. WHERE DO WE NEED TO GO?: To answer clinical questions and actively participate in clinical studies, orthopaedic surgeons should collect data in parallel to their clinical activities. Adopting a simple, user-friendly, and robust EDC system can facilitate the data collection process. HOW DO WE GET THERE?: Conducting a balanced evaluation of available options and comparing them with intended goals and requirements can help orthopaedic surgeons to make an informed choice.

SUBMITTER: Shah J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3049639 | biostudies-literature | 2010 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Electronic data capture for registries and clinical trials in orthopaedic surgery: open source versus commercial systems.

Shah Jatin J Rajgor Dimple D Pradhan Shreyasee S McCready Mariana M Zaveri Amrapali A Pietrobon Ricardo R

Clinical orthopaedics and related research 20101001 10

<h4>Background</h4>Collection and analysis of clinical data can help orthopaedic surgeons to practice evidence based medicine. Spreadsheets and offline relational databases are prevalent, but not flexible, secure, workflow friendly and do not support the generation of standardized and interoperable data. Additionally these data collection applications usually do not follow a structured and planned approach which may result in failure to achieve the intended goal.<h4>Questions/purposes</h4>Our pu ...[more]

PMID: 20635174

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe primary objective of this systematic review is to examine the characteristics of pilot randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the orthopaedic surgery literature, including the proportion framed as feasibility trials and those that lead to definitive RCTs. This review aim to answer the question of whether pilot RCTs lead to definitive RCTs, whilst investigating the quality, feasibility and overall publication trends of orthopaedic pilot trials.MethodsPilot RCTs in the orthopaedic literature were identified from three electronic databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Pubmed) searched from database inception to January 2018. Search criteria included the evaluation of at least one orthopaedic surgical intervention, research on humans, and publication in English. Two reviewers independently screened the pool of pilot trials, and conducted a search for corresponding definitive trials. Screened pilot RCTs were assessed for feasibility outcomes related to efficiency, cost, and/or timeliness of a large-scale clinical trial involving a surgical intervention. The quality of the pilot and definitive trials were assessed using the Checklist to Evaluate a Report of a Non-Pharmacological Trial (CLEAR NPT).ResultsThe initial search for pilot RCTs yielded 3857 titles, of which 49 articles were relevant for this review. 73.5% (36/49) of the orthopaedic pilot RCTs were framed as feasibility trials. Of these, 5 corresponding definitive trials (10.2%) were found, of which four were published and one ongoing. Based on author responses, the lack of a definitive RCT following the pilot trial was attributed to a lack of funding, inadequacies in recruitment, and belief that the pilot RCT sufficiently answered the research question.ConclusionsBased on this systematic review, most pilot RCTs were characterized as feasibility trials. However, the majority of published pilot RCTs did not lead to definitive trials. This discrepancy was mainly attributed to poor feasibility (e.g. poor recruitment) and lack of funding for an orthopaedic surgical definitive trial. In recent years this discrepancy may be due to researchers saving on time and cost by rolling their pilot patients into the definitive RCT rather than publish a separate pilot trial.

Dataset Information

Electronic data capture for registries and clinical trials in orthopaedic surgery: open source versus commercial systems.

Publications

Electronic data capture for registries and clinical trials in orthopaedic surgery: open source versus commercial systems.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets