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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Walther, Brigitte, Hossin, Safayet, Townend, John, Abernethy, Neil, Parker, David, Jeffries, David
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