Cargando…
Comparison of Electronic Data Capture (EDC) with the Standard Data Capture Method for Clinical Trial Data
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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2011
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3179496/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21966505 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0025348 |
_version_ | 1782212527625601024 |
---|---|
author | Walther, Brigitte Hossin, Safayet Townend, John Abernethy, Neil Parker, David Jeffries, David |
author_facet | Walther, Brigitte Hossin, Safayet Townend, John Abernethy, Neil Parker, David Jeffries, David |
author_sort | Walther, Brigitte |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3179496 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2011 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-31794962011-09-30 Comparison of Electronic Data Capture (EDC) with the Standard Data Capture Method for Clinical Trial Data Walther, Brigitte Hossin, Safayet Townend, John Abernethy, Neil Parker, David Jeffries, David PLoS One Research Article 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. Public Library of Science 2011-09-23 /pmc/articles/PMC3179496/ /pubmed/21966505 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0025348 Text en Walther et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Walther, Brigitte Hossin, Safayet Townend, John Abernethy, Neil Parker, David Jeffries, David Comparison of Electronic Data Capture (EDC) with the Standard Data Capture Method for Clinical Trial Data |
title | Comparison of Electronic Data Capture (EDC) with the Standard Data Capture Method for Clinical Trial Data |
title_full | Comparison of Electronic Data Capture (EDC) with the Standard Data Capture Method for Clinical Trial Data |
title_fullStr | Comparison of Electronic Data Capture (EDC) with the Standard Data Capture Method for Clinical Trial Data |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Electronic Data Capture (EDC) with the Standard Data Capture Method for Clinical Trial Data |
title_short | Comparison of Electronic Data Capture (EDC) with the Standard Data Capture Method for Clinical Trial Data |
title_sort | comparison of electronic data capture (edc) with the standard data capture method for clinical trial data |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3179496/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21966505 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0025348 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT waltherbrigitte comparisonofelectronicdatacaptureedcwiththestandarddatacapturemethodforclinicaltrialdata AT hossinsafayet comparisonofelectronicdatacaptureedcwiththestandarddatacapturemethodforclinicaltrialdata AT townendjohn comparisonofelectronicdatacaptureedcwiththestandarddatacapturemethodforclinicaltrialdata AT abernethyneil comparisonofelectronicdatacaptureedcwiththestandarddatacapturemethodforclinicaltrialdata AT parkerdavid comparisonofelectronicdatacaptureedcwiththestandarddatacapturemethodforclinicaltrialdata AT jeffriesdavid comparisonofelectronicdatacaptureedcwiththestandarddatacapturemethodforclinicaltrialdata |