Dataset Information

Comparison of electronic data capture (EDC) with the standard data capture method for clinical trial data.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Traditionally, clinical research studies rely on collecting data with case report forms, which are subsequently entered into a database to create electronic records. Although well established, this method is time-consuming and error-prone. This study compares four electronic data capture (EDC) methods with the conventional approach with respect to duration of data capture and accuracy. It was performed in a West African setting, where clinical trials involve data collection from urban, rural and often remote locations.

Methodology/principal findings

Three types of commonly available EDC tools were assessed in face-to-face interviews; netbook, PDA, and tablet PC. EDC performance during telephone interviews via mobile phone was evaluated as a fourth method. The Graeco Latin square study design allowed comparison of all four methods to standard paper-based recording followed by data double entry while controlling simultaneously for possible confounding factors such as interview order, interviewer and interviewee. Over a study period of three weeks the error rates decreased considerably for all EDC methods. In the last week of the study the data accuracy for the netbook (5.1%, CI95%: 3.5-7.2%) and the tablet PC (5.2%, CI95%: 3.7-7.4%) was not significantly different from the accuracy of the conventional paper-based method (3.6%, CI95%: 2.2-5.5%), but error rates for the PDA (7.9%, CI95%: 6.0-10.5%) and telephone (6.3%, CI95% 4.6-8.6%) remained significantly higher. While EDC-interviews take slightly longer, data become readily available after download, making EDC more time effective. Free text and date fields were associated with higher error rates than numerical, single select and skip fields.

Conclusions

EDC solutions have the potential to produce similar data accuracy compared to paper-based methods. Given the considerable reduction in the time from data collection to database lock, EDC holds the promise to reduce research-associated costs. However, the successful implementation of EDC requires adjustment of work processes and reallocation of resources.

SUBMITTER: Walther B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3179496 | biostudies-literature | 2011

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of electronic data capture (EDC) with the standard data capture method for clinical trial data.

Walther Brigitte B Hossin Safayet S Townend John J Abernethy Neil N Parker David D Jeffries David D

PloS one 20110923 9

<h4>Background</h4>Traditionally, clinical research studies rely on collecting data with case report forms, which are subsequently entered into a database to create electronic records. Although well established, this method is time-consuming and error-prone. This study compares four electronic data capture (EDC) methods with the conventional approach with respect to duration of data capture and accuracy. It was performed in a West African setting, where clinical trials involve data collection fr ...[more]

PMID: 21966505

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo present a generalizability assessment method that compares baseline clinical characteristics of trial participants (TP) to potentially eligible (PE) patients as presented in their electronic health record (EHR) data while controlling for clinical setting and recruitment period.MethodsFor each clinical trial, a clinical event was defined to identify patients of interest using available EHR data from one clinical setting during the trial's recruitment timeframe. The trial's eligibility criteria were then applied and patients were separated into two mutually exclusive groups: (1) TP, which were patients that participated in the trial per trial enrollment data; (2) PE, the remaining patients. The primary outcome was standardized differences in clinical characteristics between TP and PE per trial. A standardized difference was considered prominent if its absolute value was greater than or equal to 0.1. The secondary outcome was the difference in mean propensity scores (PS) between TP and PE per trial, in which the PS represented prediction for a patient to be in the trial. Three diverse trials were selected for illustration: one focused on hepatitis C virus (HCV) patients receiving a liver transplantation; one focused on leukemia patients and lymphoma patients; and one focused on appendicitis patients.ResultsFor the HCV trial, 43 TP and 83 PE were found, with 61 characteristics evaluated. Prominent differences were found among 69% of characteristics, with a mean PS difference of 0.13. For the leukemia/lymphoma trial, 23 TP and 23 PE were found, with 39 characteristics evaluated. Prominent differences were found among 82% of characteristics, with a mean PS difference of 0.76. For the appendicitis trial, 123 TP and 242 PE were found, with 52 characteristics evaluated. Prominent differences were found among 52% of characteristics, with a mean PS difference of 0.15.ConclusionsDifferences in clinical characteristics were observed between TP and PE among all three trials. In two of the three trials, not all of the differences necessarily compromised trial generalizability and subsets of PE could be considered similar to their corresponding TP. In the remaining trial, lack of generalizability appeared present, but may be a result of other factors such as small sample size or site recruitment strategy. These inconsistent findings suggest eligibility criteria alone are sometimes insufficient in defining a target group to generalize to. With caveats in limited scalability, EHR data quality, and lack of patient perspective on trial participation, this generalizability assessment method that incorporates control for temporality and clinical setting promise to better pinpoint clinical patterns and trial considerations.

Project description:ImportanceAssessing generalizability of clinical trials is important to ensure appropriate application of interventions, but most assessments provide minimal granularity on comparisons of clinical characteristics.ObjectiveTo assess the extent of underlying clinical differences between clinical trial participants and nonparticipants by using a combination of electronic health record and trial enrollment data.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study used data obtained from a single academic medical center between September 1996 and January 2019 to identify 1645 clinical trial participants from a diverse set of 202 available trials conducted at the center. Using an aggregated resampling procedure, nonparticipants were matched to participants 1:1 based on trial conditions, number of recent visits to a health care professional, and calendar time.ExposuresClinical trial enrollment vs no enrollment.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was standardized differences in clinical characteristics between participants and nonparticipants in clinical trials stratified into the 4 most common disease domains.ResultsThis cross-sectional study included 1645 participants from 202 trials (929 [56.5%] male; mean [SD] age, 54.65 [21.38] years) and an aggregated set of 1645 nonparticipants (855 [52.0%] male; mean [SD] age, 57.24 [21.91] years). The most common disease domains for the selected trials were neoplastic disease (86 trials; 737 participants), disorders of the digestive system (31 trials; 321 participants), inflammatory disorders (28 trials; 276 participants), and disorders of the cardiovascular system (27 trials; 319 participants); trials could qualify for multiple disease domains. Among 31 conditions, the percentage of conditions for which the prevalence was lower among participants than among nonparticipants per standardized differences was 64.5% (20 conditions) for neoplastic disease trials, 61.3% (19) for digestive system trials, 58.1% (18) for inflammatory disorder trials, and 38.7% (12) for cardiovascular system trials. Among 17 medications, the percentage of medications for which use was less among participants than among nonparticipants per standardized differences was 64.7% (11) for neoplastic disease trials, 58.8% (10) for digestive system trials, 88.2% (15) for inflammatory disorder trials, and 52.9% (9) for cardiovascular system trials.Conclusions and relevanceUsing a combination of electronic health record and trial enrollment data, this study found that clinical trial participants had fewer comorbidities and less use of medication than nonparticipants across a variety of disease domains. Combining trial enrollment data with electronic health record data may be useful for better understanding of the generalizability of trial results.

Project description:Clinical studies in children are necessary yet conducting multiple visits at study centers remains challenging. The success of "care-at-home" initiatives and remote clinical trials suggests their potential to facilitate conduct of pediatric studies. This pilot aimed to study the feasibility of remotely collecting valid (i.e. complete and correct) saliva samples and clinical data utilizing mobile technology.Single-center, prospective pilot study in children undergoing elective tonsillectomy at the University of Basel Children's Hospital. Data on pain scores and concomitant medication and saliva samples were collected by caregivers on two to four inpatient study days and on three consecutive study days at home. A tailored mobile application developed for this study supported data collection. The primary endpoint was the proportion of complete and correct caregiver-collected data (pain scale) and saliva samples in the at-home setting. Secondary endpoints included the proportion of complete and correct saliva samples in the inpatient setting, subjective feasibility for caregivers, and study cost.A total number of 23 children were included in the study of which 17 children, median age 6.0 years (IQR 5.0, 7.4), completed the study. During the at-home phase, 71.9% [CI?=?64.4, 78.6] of all caregiver-collected pain assessments and 53.9% [CI?=?44.2, 63.4] of all saliva samples were complete and correct. Overall, 64.7% [CI?=?58.7, 70.4] of all data collected by caregivers at home was complete and correct. The predominant reason for incorrectness of data was adherence to the timing of predefined patient actions. Participating caregivers reported high levels of satisfaction and willingness to participate in similar trials in the future. Study costs for a potential sample size of 100 patients were calculated to be 20% lower for the at-home than for a traditional in-patient study setting.Mobile device supported studies conducted at home may provide a cost-effective approach to facilitate conduct of clinical studies in children. Given findings in this pilot study, data collection at home may focus on electronic data capture rather than biological sampling.

Project description:BackgroundRandomized controlled trials (RCT) are considered the ideal design for evaluating the efficacy of interventions. However, conducting a successful RCT has technological and logistical challenges. Defects in randomization processes (e.g., allocation sequence concealment) and flawed masking could bias an RCT's findings. Moreover, investigators need to address other logistics common to all study designs, such as study invitations, eligibility screening, consenting procedure, and data confidentiality protocols. Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) is a secure, browser-based web application widely used by researchers for survey data collection. REDCap offers unique features that can be used to conduct rigorous RCTs.MethodsIn September and November 2020, we conducted a parallel group RCT among Indiana University Bloomington (IUB) undergraduate students to understand if receiving the results of a SARS-CoV-2 antibody test changed the students' self-reported protective behavior against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In the current report, we discuss how we used REDCap to conduct the different components of this RCT. We further share our REDCap project XML file and instructional videos that investigators can use when designing and conducting their RCTs.ResultsWe reported on the different features that REDCap offers to complete various parts of a large RCT, including sending study invitations and recruitment, eligibility screening, consenting procedures, lab visit appointment and reminders, data collection and confidentiality, randomization, blinding of treatment arm assignment, returning test results, and follow-up surveys.ConclusionsREDCap offers powerful tools for longitudinal data collection and conduct of rigorous and successful RCTs. Investigators can make use of this electronic data capturing system to successfully complete their RCTs.Trial registrationThe RCT was prospectively (before completing data collection) registered at ClinicalTrials.gov; registration number: NCT04620798 , date of registration: November 9, 2020.

Dataset Information

Comparison of electronic data capture (EDC) with the standard data capture method for clinical trial data.

Background

Methodology/principal findings

Conclusions

Publications

Comparison of electronic data capture (EDC) with the standard data capture method for clinical trial data.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets