Dataset Information

Comparison of two data collection processes in clinical studies: electronic and paper case report forms.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Electronic Case Report Forms (eCRFs) are increasingly chosen by investigators and sponsors of clinical research instead of the traditional pen-and-paper data collection (pCRFs). Previous studies suggested that eCRFs avoided mistakes, shortened the duration of clinical studies and reduced data collection costs.

Methods

Our objectives were to describe and contrast both objective and subjective efficiency of pCRF and eCRF use in clinical studies. A total of 27 studies (11 eCRF, 16 pCRF) sponsored by the Paris hospital consortium, conducted and completed between 2001 and 2011 were included. Questionnaires were emailed to investigators of those studies, as well as clinical research associates and data managers working in Paris hospitals, soliciting their level of satisfaction and preferences for eCRFs and pCRFs. Mean costs and timeframes were compared using bootstrap methods, linear and logistic regression.

Results

The total cost per patient was 374€ ±351 with eCRFs vs. 1,135€ ±1,234 with pCRFs. Time between the opening of the first center and the database lock was 31.7 months Q1 = 24.6; Q3 = 42.8 using eCRFs, vs. 39.8 months Q1 = 31.7; Q3 = 52.2 with pCRFs (p = 0.11). Electronic CRFs were globally preferred by all (31/72 vs. 15/72 for paper) for easier monitoring and improved data quality.

Conclusions

This study found that eCRFs and pCRFs are used in studies with different patient numbers, center numbers and risk. The first ones are more advantageous in large, low-risk studies and gain support from a majority of stakeholders.

SUBMITTER: Le Jeannic A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3909932 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Regulations, study design complexity and amounts of collected and shared data in clinical trials render efficient data handling procedures inevitable. Recent research suggests that electronic data capture can be key in this context but evidence is insufficient. This randomized controlled parallel group study tested the hypothesis that time efficiency is superior when electronic (eCRF) instead of paper case report forms (pCRF) are used for data collection. We additionally investigated predictors of time saving effects and data integrity.This study was conducted on top of a clinical weight loss trial performed at a clinical research facility over six months. All study nurses and patients participating in the clinical trial were eligible to participate and randomly allocated to enter cross-sectional data obtained during routine visits either through pCRF or eCRF. A balanced randomization list was generated before enrolment commenced. 90 and 30 records were gathered for the time that 27 patients and 2 study nurses required to report 2025 and 2037 field values, respectively. The primary hypothesis, that eCRF use is faster than pCRF use, was tested by a two-tailed t-test. Analysis of variance and covariance were used to evaluate predictors of entry performance. Data integrity was evaluated by descriptive statistics.All randomized patients were included in the study (eCRF group n =?13, pCRF group n =?14). eCRF, as compared to pCRF, data collection was associated with significant time savings across all conditions (8.29?±?5.15 min vs. 10.54?±?6.98 min, p =?.047). This effect was not defined by participant type, i.e. patients or study nurses (F(1,112) =?.15, p =?.699), CRF length (F(2,112) =?.49, p =?.609) or patient age (Beta?=?.09, p =?.534). Additional 5.16?±?2.83 min per CRF were saved with eCRFs due to data transcription redundancy when patients answered questionnaires directly in eCRFs. Data integrity was superior in the eCRF condition (0 versus 3 data entry errors).This is the first study to prove in direct comparison that using eCRFs instead of pCRFs increases time efficiency of data collection in clinical trials, irrespective of item quantity or patient age, and improves data quality.Clinical Trials NCT02649907 .

Project description:IntroductionSelf-reported measures of healthcare utilisation are often used in longitudinal cohort studies involving older community-dwelling people. The aim of this study is to compare healthcare utilisation rates using patient self-report and manual extraction from the general practice (GP) electronic medical record (EMR).MethodsStudy population: Two prospective cohort studies (n = 806 and n = 1,377, aged ≥70 years) conducted in the Republic of Ireland were compared. Study outcomes: GP, outpatient department (OPD) and emergency department (ED) visits over a one-year period. Statistical analysis: Descriptive statistics of the two cohorts are presented. A negative binomial regression was performed and results are presented as incidence rate ratios (IRR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For the outcome of any ED visit, linear regression was performed, yielding risk ratios (RR) with 95% CI.ResultsThe annual rates of GP, OPD and ED visits were 6.30 (SD 4.63), 2.11 (SD 2.46) and 0.26 (SD 0.62) respectively in GP EMR cohort, compared to 5.65 (SD 8.06), 2.09 (SD 5.83) and 0.32 (SD 0.84) in the self-report cohort. In univariate regression analysis comparing healthcare utilisation, the self-report cohort reported a lower frequency of GP visits (unadjusted IRR 0.90 (95% CI 0.84, 0.96), p = 0.02)), a greater frequency of ED visits (1.20 (0.98, 1.49), p = 0.083)), and no difference in OPD visits (unadjusted IRR 0.99 (95% CI 0.86, 1.13), p = 0.845)). In multivariate analysis, adjusted for relevant confounders, there was no difference in GP visits (adjusted IRR 0.99 (95% CI 0.92, 1.06), p = 0.684)) or OPD visits (adjusted IRR 1.09 (0.95, 1.25), p = 0.23)) between the two cohorts. However, the self-report cohort reported 37% more ED visits (adjusted IRR 1.37 (1.10, 1.71), p = 0.005)) and were more likely to report any ED visit (adjusted RR 1.23 (95% CI 1.02, 1.48), p = 0.028)).ConclusionsThis study demonstrates that reported rates of GP and OPD visits were similar but there were differences in reported ED visits, with significantly higher self-reported visits. This may be due to ED visits not being notified to the GP and contextual issues such as transfer of healthcare utilisation data between sectors may vary in different healthcare systems.

Project description:BackgroundAs researchers are increasingly interested in real-world studies (RWSs), improving data collection efficiency and data quality has become an important challenge. An electronic source (eSource) generally includes direct capture, collection, and storage of electronic data to simplify clinical research. It can improve data quality and patient safety and reduce clinical trial costs. Although there are already large projects on eSource technology, there is a lack of experience in using eSource technology to implement RWSs. Our team designed and developed an eSource record (ESR) system in China. In a preliminary prospective study, we selected a cosmetic medical device project to evaluate ESR software's effect on data collection and transcription. As the previous case verification was simple, we plan to choose more complicated ophthalmology projects to further evaluate the ESR.ObjectiveWe aimed to evaluate the data transcription efficiency and quality of ESR software in retrospective studies to verify the feasibility of using eSource as an alternative to traditional manual transcription of data in RWS projects.MethodsThe approved ophthalmic femtosecond laser project was used for ESR case validation. This study compared the efficiency and quality of data transcription between the eSource method using ESR software and the traditional clinical research model of manually transcribing the data. Usability refers to the quality of a user's experience when interacting with products or systems including websites, software, devices, or applications. To evaluate the system availability of ESR, we used the System Usability Scale (SUS). The questionnaire consisted of the following 2 parts: participant information and SUS evaluation of the electronic medical record (EMR), electronic data capture (EDC), and ESR systems. By accessing log data from the EDC system previously used by the research project, all the time spent from the beginning to the end of the study could be counted.ResultsIn terms of transcription time cost per field, the eSource method can reduce the time cost by 81.8% (11.2/13.7). Compared with traditional manual data transcription, the eSource method has higher data transcription quality (correct entry rate of 2356/2400, 98.17% vs 47,991/51,424, 93.32%). A total of 15 questionnaires were received with a response rate of 100%. In terms of usability, the average overall SUS scores of the EMR, EDC, and ESR systems were 50.3 (SD 21.9), 51.5 (SD 14.2), and 63.0 (SD 11.3; contract research organization experts: 69.5, SD 11.5; clinicians: 59.8, SD 10.2), respectively. The Cronbach α for the SUS items of the EMR, EDC, and ESR systems were 0.591 (95% CI -0.012 to 0.903), 0.588 (95% CI -0.288 to 0.951), and 0.785 (95% CI 0.576-0.916), respectively.ConclusionsIn real-world ophthalmology studies, the eSource approach based on the ESR system can replace the traditional clinical research model that relies on the manual transcription of data.