Data Capture from the Sponsors’ And Investigators’ Perspectives: Balancing Quality, Speed, and Cost

Most clinical trials require the collection of enormous quantities of data at the clinical site. Traditionally, these data have been recorded on paper diary cards and case report forms (CRFs) and captured using double keystroke entry. Many factors in the drug development environment are now dictating that sponsors consider adopting new procedures for clinical data capture. This report compares and contrasts a variety of these techniques from the perspective of the sponsor and the investigative site. No single process is ideal for all studies. Indeed, it is important to select procedures to harvest clinical data that fit each study, individually, so that quality, speed, and cost can all be maximized. Clearly, quality must be the first consideration. Sponsors and contractors must also consider the investigative site to assure that these new data capture techniques can be implemented by the end user.

[1]  K. Kobak,et al.  Computer-administered clinical rating scales A review , 1996, Psychopharmacology.

[2]  J. Bryan Doherty A New International Perspective—The Application of the Principles of GLP to Computerized Systems (OECD 1995) , 1997 .

[3]  F. Lopresti,et al.  Approaches to data management. , 1995, Controlled clinical trials.

[4]  C J McDonald,et al.  A Framework for Capturing Clinical Data Sets from Computerized Sources , 1997, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[5]  B A Blumenstein Verifying keyed medical research data. , 1993, Statistics in medicine.

[6]  T Tolxdorff,et al.  Implementing HL7: from the Standard's Specification to Production Application , 1998, Methods of Information in Medicine.

[7]  I S Kohane,et al.  Building national electronic medical record systems via the World Wide Web. , 1996, Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA.

[8]  Peter Szolovits,et al.  Application of Information Technology: A WWW Implementation of National Recommendations for Protecting Electronic Health Information , 1997, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[9]  B. Tiplady,et al.  The Use of Electronic Diaries in Respiratory Studies , 1997 .

[10]  R. Reynolds-Haertle,et al.  Single vs. double data entry in CAST. , 1992, Controlled clinical trials.

[11]  G K Crompton,et al.  Electronic diaries for asthma , 1995, BMJ.

[12]  Lawrence B. Afrin,et al.  Application of Technology: Electronic Clinical Trial Protocol Distribution via the World-Wide Web: A Prototype for Reducing Costs and Errors, Improving Accrual, and Saving Trees , 1997, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[13]  J Zhang,et al.  Single or double data entry: considerations based on a simple binomial model. , 1998, Controlled clinical trials.

[14]  J. Fitzmaurice Health care data standards are required for medically effective use of workstations. , 1994, International journal of bio-medical computing.

[15]  Kenneth Buchholz,et al.  The Value of Computer-Assisted Data Review in the Clinical Development Process , 1997 .

[16]  M. Hyland,et al.  Diary keeping in asthma: comparison of written and electronic methods. , 1993, BMJ.

[17]  Michael M. Wagner,et al.  Review: Accuracy of Data in Computer-based Patient Records , 1997, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[18]  P. Chowienczyk,et al.  Do asthmatic patients correctly record home spirometry measurements? , 1994, BMJ.

[19]  B. Hawkins,et al.  Data collection and transcription. , 1995, Controlled clinical trials.

[20]  J. Weiler,et al.  Comparative outdoor study of the efficacy, onset and duration of action, and safety of cetirizine, loratadine, and placebo for seasonal allergic rhinitis. , 1996, The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology.

[21]  E. M. Sullivan,et al.  A Statistically-Based Process for Auditing Clinical Data Listings , 1997 .

[22]  Paul B. Connor,et al.  Feasibility of keying data from screen-displayed facsimile images in an ongoing trial: the collaborative ocular melanoma study. , 1998, Controlled clinical trials.

[23]  R N Shiffman,et al.  Transition to a computer-based record using scannable, structured encounter forms. , 1997, Archives of pediatrics & adolescent medicine.

[24]  W R Hogan,et al.  Free-text fields change the meaning of coded data. , 1996, Proceedings : a conference of the American Medical Informatics Association. AMIA Fall Symposium.

[25]  S B Higgins,et al.  Pivot/Remote: a distributed database for remote data entry in multi-center clinical trials. , 1995, Medinfo. MEDINFO.

[26]  J. Weiler,et al.  A dose-ranging study of the efficacy and safety of azelastine nasal spray in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis with an acute model. , 1994, The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology.

[27]  S Day,et al.  Double data entry: what value, what price? , 1998, Controlled clinical trials.

[28]  Monica Pimazzoni Global Data Management: A Winning Approach to Clinical Data Processing , 1998 .

[29]  T Kiuchi,et al.  A World Wide Web-based user interface for a data management system for use in multi-institutional clinical trials--development and experimental operation of an automated patient registration and random allocation system. , 1996, Controlled clinical trials.