Dataset Information

The iCRF Generator: Generating interoperable electronic case report forms using online codebooks.

ABSTRACT: Semantic interoperability of clinical data is essential to preserve its meaning and intent when the data is exchanged, re-used or integrated with other data. Achieving semantic operability requires the use of a communication standard, such as HL7, as well as (functional) information standards. Manually mapping clinical data to a medical thesaurus, such as SNOMED CT, is complicated and requires expert knowledge of both the dataset, including its context, and the thesaurus. As an alternative, the (re-)use of codebooks, data definitions which may already have been mapped to a thesaurus, can be a viable approach. We've developed the iCRF Generator, a Java program that can generate the core of an interoperable electronic case report form (iCRF) for several of the major electronic data capture systems (EDCs). To build their CRFs, users can select one or more items from established codebooks, available from an online system called ART-DECOR. By providing an easy to use method to create CRFs for multiple EDCs based on the same codebooks, interoperability can be more easily attained.

SUBMITTER: de Ridder S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7291075 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The iCRF Generator: Generating interoperable electronic case report forms using online codebooks.

de Ridder Sander S Beliën Jeroen A M JAM

F1000Research 20200204

Semantic interoperability of clinical data is essential to preserve its meaning and intent when the data is exchanged, re-used or integrated with other data. Achieving semantic operability requires the use of a communication standard, such as HL7, as well as (functional) information standards. Manually mapping clinical data to a medical thesaurus, such as SNOMED CT, is complicated and requires expert knowledge of both the dataset, including its context, and the thesaurus. As an alternative, the ...[more]

PMID: 32566137

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: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.

Dataset Information

The iCRF Generator: Generating interoperable electronic case report forms using online codebooks.

Publications

The iCRF Generator: Generating interoperable electronic case report forms using online codebooks.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets