31
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The Use of Electronic Data Capture Tools in Clinical Trials: Web-Survey of 259 Canadian Trials

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Electronic data capture (EDC) tools provide automated support for data collection, reporting, query resolution, randomization, and validation, among other features, for clinical trials. There is a trend toward greater adoption of EDC tools in clinical trials, but there is also uncertainty about how many trials are actually using this technology in practice. A systematic review of EDC adoption surveys conducted up to 2007 concluded that only 20% of trials are using EDC systems, but previous surveys had weaknesses.

          Objectives

          Our primary objective was to estimate the proportion of phase II/III/IV Canadian clinical trials that used an EDC system in 2006 and 2007. The secondary objectives were to investigate the factors that can have an impact on adoption and to develop a scale to assess the extent of sophistication of EDC systems.

          Methods

          We conducted a Web survey to estimate the proportion of trials that were using an EDC system. The survey was sent to the Canadian site coordinators for 331 trials. We also developed and validated a scale using Guttman scaling to assess the extent of sophistication of EDC systems. Trials using EDC were compared by the level of sophistication of their systems.

          Results

          We had a 78.2% response rate (259/331) for the survey. It is estimated that 41% (95% CI 37.5%-44%) of clinical trials were using an EDC system. Trials funded by academic institutions, government, and foundations were less likely to use an EDC system compared to those sponsored by industry. Also, larger trials tended to be more likely to adopt EDC. The EDC sophistication scale had six levels and a coefficient of reproducibility of 0.901 ( P< .001) and a coefficient of scalability of 0.79. There was no difference in sophistication based on the funding source, but pediatric trials were likely to use a more sophisticated EDC system.

          Conclusion

          The adoption of EDC systems in clinical trials in Canada is higher than the literature indicated: a large proportion of clinical trials in Canada use some form of automated data capture system. To inform future adoption, research should gather stronger evidence on the costs and benefits of using different EDC systems.

          Related collections

          Most cited references80

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Approximate Is Better than "Exact" for Interval Estimation of Binomial Proportions

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Annual Report

            (2014)
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Trial Registration at ClinicalTrials.gov between May and October 2005.

              Clinical trial registration allows interested parties to obtain information about ongoing and completed trials, but there are few data indicating the quality of the information provided during the registration process. We used information in the publicly available ClinicalTrials.gov database to describe patterns of trial registration before and after the implementation by journal editors of a new policy requiring registration as a prerequisite for publication. We reviewed ClinicalTrials.gov records to determine patterns of completion of the "Intervention Name" and "Primary Outcome Measure" data fields for trials registered on May 20 and October 11, 2005, and for trials registered during the interval between these two dates, inclusively. During the interval studied, the number of registrations in ClinicalTrials.gov increased by 73 percent from 13,153 to 22,714. The percentage of interventional trials registered by industry with nonspecific Intervention Name entries (attributable to four drug companies) decreased from 10 percent to 2 percent; all other industry and nonindustry records contained specific entries in this field. Of the 2670 studies registered by industry between the two dates, 76 percent provided information in the Primary Outcome Measure field, although these entries varied markedly in their degree of specificity. In the remaining 24 percent of the records, this field was blank. During the summer of 2005, there were large increases in the number of clinical trial registrations. Overall, the data contained in records were more complete in October than they were in May, but there still is room for substantial improvement. Copyright 2005 Massachusetts Medical Society.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                J Med Internet Res
                JMIR
                Journal of Medical Internet Research
                Gunther Eysenbach (Centre for Global eHealth Innovation, Toronto, Canada )
                1438-8871
                Jan-Mar 2009
                09 March 2009
                : 11
                : 1
                : e8
                Affiliations
                [3] 3simpleCanadian Institutes of Health Research OttawaONCanada
                [2] 2PediatricsFaculty of MedicinesimpleUniversity of Ottawa OttawaONCanada
                [1] 1simpleChildren’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute OttawaONCanada
                Article
                v11i1e8
                10.2196/jmir.1120
                2762772
                19275984
                4b7cd018-c0ec-4929-8d74-15bb239681ea
                © Khaled El Emam, Elizabeth Jonker, Margaret Sampson, Karmela Krleza-Jeric, Angelica Neisa. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 09.03.2009.  

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

                History
                : 11 August 2008
                : 30 August 2008
                : 12 January 2009
                : 03 February 2009
                Categories
                Original Paper

                Medicine
                clinical trials,diffusion of innovation,electronic data capture,data collection
                Medicine
                clinical trials, diffusion of innovation, electronic data capture, data collection

                Comments

                Comment on this article