Top

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

Published in:

01-10-2010 | Symposium: ABJS Carl T. Brighton Workshop on Health Informatics

Electronic Data Capture for Registries and Clinical Trials in Orthopaedic Surgery: Open Source versus Commercial Systems

Authors: Jatin Shah, BAMS, PDCR, Dimple Rajgor, MSc, Shreyasee Pradhan, MSc, Mariana McCready, BS, Amrapali Zaveri, MSc, Ricardo Pietrobon, MD, PhD, MBA

Published in: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® | Issue 10/2010

Abstract

Background

Collection and analysis of clinical data can help orthopaedic surgeons to practice evidence based medicine. Spreadsheets and offline relational databases are prevalent, but not flexible, secure, workflow friendly and do not support the generation of standardized and interoperable data. Additionally these data collection applications usually do not follow a structured and planned approach which may result in failure to achieve the intended goal.

Questions/purposes

Our purposes are (1) to provide a brief overview of EDC systems, their types, and related pros and cons as well as to describe commonly used EDC platforms and their features; and (2) describe simple steps involved in designing a registry/clinical study in DADOS P, an open source EDC system.

Where are we now?

Electronic data capture systems aimed at addressing these issues are widely being adopted at an institutional/national/international level but are lacking at an individual level. A wide array of features, relative pros and cons and different business models cause confusion and indecision among orthopaedic surgeons interested in implementing EDC systems.

Where do we need to go?

To answer clinical questions and actively participate in clinical studies, orthopaedic surgeons should collect data in parallel to their clinical activities. Adopting a simple, user-friendly, and robust EDC system can facilitate the data collection process.

How do we get there?

Conducting a balanced evaluation of available options and comparing them with intended goals and requirements can help orthopaedic surgeons to make an informed choice.

Available only for authorised users

Bart T. Comparison of electronic data capture with paper data collection. Business briefing: Pharmatech, 2003 Available at: http://www.dreamslab.it/doc/eclinica.pdf. Accessed: June 22, 2010.

Black N. High-quality clinical databases: breaking down barriers. Lancet. 1999;353:1205–1206.CrossRefPubMed

Brown EG, Holmes BJ, McAulay SE. Clinical Trials’ EDC Endgame. New York, NY: Forrester Research, Inc; 2004.

CFR - Code of Federal Regulations Title 21. Available at: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?CFRPart=11. Accessed February 1, 2010.

CliniProteus. Available at: http://www.rfdn.org/bioinfo/CTMS/ctms.html. Accessed February 1, 2010.

Clinsys® Clinical Research. Available at: http://www.clinsys.com/. Accessed February 1, 2010.

Dados Prospective, Duke University Version 2.1. Available at: https://www.ceso.duke.edu/dados2.1/servlet/Controller. Accessed February 1, 2010.

DATATRAK One™. Available at: http://www.datatrak.net/products/electronic-data-capture/. Accessed June 1, 2010.

De Lusignan S, van Weel C. The use of routinely collected computer data for research in primary care: opportunities and challenges. Fam Pract. 2006;23:253–263.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Entrypoint Plus®. Available at: http://www.entrypointplus.com/audit_trail.htm. Accessed February 1, 2010.

11.

eTrials EDC, Merge Healthcare, Available at: http://www.merge.com/products/etrials/trial-intelligence/index.aspx. Accessed June 1, 2010.

12.

Eugene CN, Mark ES, Paul BB, Stephen KP. Building measurement and data collection into medical practice. Ann Intern Med. 1998;128:460–466.

13.

Fegan GW, Lang TA. Could an open-source clinical trial data-management system be what we have all been looking for? PLoS Med. 2008;5:e6–e6.CrossRefPubMed

14.

GNU General Public License. Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License. Accessed February 1, 2010.

15.

GPL 2. Available at: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html. Accessed February 1, 2010.

16.

Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap) - A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42:377–381.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Hashkes PJ, Uziel Y, Rubenstein M. The Israeli Internet-based registry: novel concept of multicenter data collection in pediatric rheumatology. Pediatr Rheumatol Online J. 2004;2:37–50. Available at: http://www.pedrheumonlinejournal.org/Jan-Feb/PDF/registry.pdf. Accessed June 22, 2010.

18.

Helms RW. Data quality issues in electronic data capture. Drug Inf J. 2001;35:827–837.

19.

Herberts P, Malchau H. How outcome studies have changed total hip arthroplasty practices in Sweden. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1997;344:44–60.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Herberts P, Malchau H. Many years of registration have improved the quality of hip arthroplasty [in Swedish]. Läkartidningen. 1999;96:2469–2473, 2475–2476

21.

Herberts P, Malchau H. Long-term registration has improved the quality of hip replacement: a review of the Swedish THR Register comparing 160,000 cases. Acta Orthop Scand. 2000;71:111–121.CrossRefPubMed

22.

InForm^TM Available at: http://www.phaseforward.com/products/clinical/edc/default.aspx. Accessed February 1, 2010.

23.

Keramaris NC, Kanakaris NK, Tzioupis C, Kontakis G, Giannoudis PV. Translational research: from benchside to bedside. Injury. 2008;39:643–650.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Koop A, Mösges R. The use of handheld computers in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 2002;23:469–480.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Kush RD, Bleicher P, Kubick WR, Kush ST, Marks R, Raymond SA, Tardiff B. eClinical Trials: Planning and Implementation. Boston, MA: CenterWatch; 2003.

26.

Lang M, Kirpekar N, Bürkle T, Laumann S, Prokosch HU. Results from data mining in a radiology department: the relevance of data quality. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2007;129(Pt 1):576–580.PubMed

27.

Litchfield J, Freeman J, Schou H, Elsley M, Fuller R, Chubb B. Is the future for clinical trials internet-based? A cluster randomized clinical trial. Clin Trials (London, England). 2005;2:72–79.

28.

Nguyen L, Shah A, Harker M, Martins H, McCready M, Menezes A, Jacobs D, Pietrobon R. DADOS-Prospective: an open source application for Web-based prospective data collection. Source Code Biol Med. 2006;1:7.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Nutting PA. Practice-based research networks answer primary care questions. JAMA. 1999;281:686–688.CrossRefPubMed

30.

OpenClinica®. Open source for clinical research. Available at: http://www.openclinica.org/. Accessed February 2010.

31.

Oracle® Clinical. Available at: http://www.oracle.com/industries/life_sciences/oracle-clinical.html. Accessed February 2010.

32.

Paterson D. The International Documentation and Evaluation System (IDES). Orthopedics. 1993;16:11–14.PubMed

33.

Pavlović I, Kern T, Miklavčič D. Comparison of paper-based and electronic data collection process in clinical trials: costs simulation study. Contemp Clin Trials. 2009;30:300–316.CrossRefPubMed

34.

Project RedCap. Available at: http://www.project-redcap.org/videos.php. Accessed: June 22, 2010 .

35.

Prokscha S. Practical Guide to Clinical Data Management. 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2006.CrossRef

36.

RAVE, Medidata solutions. Available at: http://www.mdsol.com/products/rave_overview.htm. Accessed February 1, 2010.

37.

Research on Research Group. Available at: http://researchonresearch.org/. Accessed December 12, 2009.

38.

Röder C, Eggli S, EL-Kerdi A, Müller U, Ambrose T, Röösli E, Busato A, Aebi M. The International Documentation and Evaluation System (IDES)—10-years experience. Int Orthop. 2003;27:259–261.CrossRefPubMed

39.

Röder C, El-Kerdi A, Grob D, Aebi M. A European spine registry. Eur Spine J. 2002;11:303–307.CrossRefPubMed

40.

Röder C E-Kerdi A, Frigg A, Kolling C, Staub L, Bach B. The Swiss Orthopaedic Registry. Bull Hosp Jt Dis. 2005;63:15–19.PubMed

41.

Sujansky WV. The benefits and challenges of an electronic medical record: much more than a “word-processed” patient chart. West J Med. 1998;169:176–183.PubMed

42.

Sussman S, Valente TW, Rohrbach LA, Skara S, Pentz MA. Translation in the health professions: converting science into action. Eval Health Prof. 2006;29:7–32.CrossRefPubMed

43.

Trial DB. Available at: http://ycmi.med.yale.edu/TrialDB/. Accessed February 2010.

44.

Velikova G, Wright EP, Smith AB, Cull A, Gould A, Forman D, Perren T, Stead M, Brown J, Selby PJ. Automated collection of quality-of-life data: a comparison of paper and computer touch-screen questionnaires. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:998–998.PubMed

45.

Welker JA. Implementation of electronic data capture systems: Barriers and solutions. Contemp Clin Trials. 2007;28:329–336.CrossRefPubMed

46.

Yackel TR. How the open-source development model can improve medical software. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2001;84(Pt 1):68–72.PubMed

Title: Electronic Data Capture for Registries and Clinical Trials in Orthopaedic Surgery: Open Source versus Commercial Systems
Authors: Jatin Shah, BAMS, PDCR
Dimple Rajgor, MSc
Shreyasee Pradhan, MSc
Mariana McCready, BS
Amrapali Zaveri, MSc
Ricardo Pietrobon, MD, PhD, MBA
Publication date: 01-10-2010
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® / Issue 10/2010
Print ISSN: 0009-921X
Electronic ISSN: 1528-1132
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-010-1469-3

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Electronic Data Capture for Registries and Clinical Trials in Orthopaedic Surgery: Open Source versus Commercial Systems

Abstract

Background

Questions/purposes

Where are we now?

Where do we need to go?

How do we get there?

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Questions/purposes

Where are we now?

Where do we need to go?

How do we get there?

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 10/2010

In Brief: Classifications in Brief: Mirels’ Classification: Metastatic Disease in Long Bones and Impending Pathologic Fracture

The Potential Research Impact of Patient Reported Outcomes on Osteogenesis Imperfecta

Office-based Core Needle Biopsy of Bone and Soft Tissue Malignancies: An Accurate Alternative to Open Biopsy with Infrequent Complications

Pain Relief, Motion, and Function after Rotator Cuff Repair or Reconstruction May Not Persist after 16 Years

Do Scores of the USMLE Step 1 and OITE Correlate with the ABOS Part I Certifying Examination?: A Multicenter Study

The Role of SIGN in the Development of a Global Orthopaedic Trauma Database