Mobile electronic versus paper case report forms in clinical trials: a randomized controlled trial.
Mobile electronic versus paper case report forms in clinical trials: a randomized controlled trial.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/s12874-017-0429-y
复制
发表时间：
2017-12-01
影响因子：
4
通讯作者：
Schmidt S
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Fleischmann R;Decker AM;Kraft A;Mai K;Schmidt S
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.
登录
查看更多内容
DOI：
10.1197/jamia.m3041
发表时间：
2009-09-01
影响因子：
6.4
作者：
Haller, Guy;Haller, Dagmar M.;Lovis, Christian
通讯作者：
Lovis, Christian
影响因子：
7.2
作者：
Dillon, David G.;Pirie, Fraser;Rice, Stephen;Pomilla, Cristina;Sandhu, Manjinder S.;Motala, Ayesha A.;Young, Elizabeth H.
通讯作者：
Young, Elizabeth H.
影响因子：
5.5
作者：
Jones CE;Munoz FM;Kochhar S;Vergnano S;Cutland CL;Steinhoff M;Black S;Heininger U;Bonhoeffer J;Heath PT
通讯作者：
Heath PT
影响因子：
3.4
作者：
Ali, Syed Mustafa;Powers, Rachel;Anderson, Richard
通讯作者：
Anderson, Richard
影响因子：
3.5
作者：
Njuguna, Henry N.;Caselton, Deborah L.;Mott, Joshua A.
通讯作者：
Mott, Joshua A.