Dataset Information

Electronic case report forms and electronic data capture within clinical trials and pharmacoepidemiology.

ABSTRACT: Researchers in clinical and pharmacoepidemiology fields have adopted information technology (IT) and electronic data capture, but these remain underused despite the benefits. This review discusses electronic case report forms and electronic data capture, specifically within pharmacoepidemiology and clinical research.The review used PubMed and the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers library. Search terms used were agreed by the authors and documented. PubMed is medical and health based, whereas Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers is technology based. The review focuses on electronic case report forms and electronic data capture, but briefly considers other relevant topics; consent, ethics and security.There were 1126 papers found using the search terms. Manual filtering and reviewing of abstracts further condensed this number to 136 relevant manuscripts. The papers were further categorized: 17 contained study data; 40 observational data; 27 anecdotal data; 47 covering methodology or design of systems; one case study; one literature review; two feasibility studies; and one cost analysis.Electronic case report forms, electronic data capture and IT in general are viewed with enthusiasm and are seen as a cost-effective means of improving research efficiency, educating participants and improving trial recruitment, provided concerns about how data will be protected from misuse can be addressed. Clear operational guidelines and best practises are key for healthcare providers, and researchers adopting IT, and further work is needed on improving integration of new technologies with current systems. A robust method of evaluation for technical innovation is required.

SUBMITTER: Rorie DA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5555865 | biostudies-other | 2017 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

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:BackgroundTraditionally, 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 findingsThree 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.ConclusionsEDC 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.

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

Electronic case report forms and electronic data capture within clinical trials and pharmacoepidemiology.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets