Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Data Capture from the Sponsors’ And Investigators’ Perspectives: Balancing Quality, Speed, and Cost

  • Published:
Drug information journal : DIJ / Drug Information Association Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Most clinical trials require the collection of enormous quantities of data at the clinical site. Traditionally, these data have been recorded on paper diary cards and case report forms (CRFs) and captured using double keystroke entry. Many factors in the drug development environment are now dictating thai sponsors consider adopting new proce-dures for clinical data capture. This report compares and contrasts a variety of these techniques from the perspective of the sponsor and the investigative site. No single process is ideal for all studies. Indeed, it is important to select procedures to harvest clinical data that fit each study, individually, so that quality, speed, and cost can all be maximized. Clearly, quality must be the first consideration. Sponsors and contractors must also consider the investigative site to assure that these new data capture techniques can be implemented by the end user.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. McFadden ET, LoPresti F, Bailey LR, et al. Approaches to data management. Control Clin Trials. 1995;16:30S–65S.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Reynolds-Haertle RA, McBride R. Single vs. double data entry in CAST. Control Clin Trials. 1992;13:487–494.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Blumenstein BA. Verifying keyed medical research data. Stat Med. 1993;12:1535–1542.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Hosking JD, Newhouse MM, Bagniewska A, et al. Data collection and transcription. Control Clin Trials. 1995;16:66S–103S.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Zhang J, Hu W. Single or double data entry: considerations based on a simple binomial model. Control ClinTrials. 1998;19:56–58.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Day S, Fayers P, Harvey D. Double data entry: what value, what price? Control Clin Trials. 1998;19:15–24.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Buchholz K, Ascoli D. The value of computer-assisted data review in the clinical development process. Drug Inf J. 1997;31:635–638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Pimazzoni M. Global data management: a winning approach to clinical data processing. Drug lnf J. 1998;32:569–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Daniel DA, Nanjo-Jones N, Kirwin J, et al. Outsourcing management in the pharmaceutical industry: the early stages at four United States companies. Drug Inf J. 1997;31:111–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Electronic records; electronic signatures. Federal Register. 1997;62:13429–13466.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Fitzmaurice JM. Health care data standards are required for medically effective use of workstations. Int J Biomed Comput. 1994;34:331–334.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. McDonald CJ, Overhage JM, Dexter P, et al. A framework for capturing clinical data sets from computerized sources. Ann Int Med. 1997;127:675–682.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Doherty JB. A new international perspective—the application of the principles of GLP to computerized systems (OECD 1995). Drug Inf J. 1997;31:883–888.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Schadow G, Fohring U, Tolxdorff. Implementing HL7: from the standard’s specification to production application. Meth Inform Med. 1998;37:119–123.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Stokes T. Computer systems validation (6 part series). Appl Clin Trials. September 1996, January 1997, February 1997, April 1997, June 1997, August 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hogan WR, Wagner MM. Free-text fields change the meaning of coded data. Proc AMIA Annu Fall Symp. 1996;517–521.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Higgins SB, Jiang K, Plummer WD Jr, et al. Pivot/Remote: a distributed database for remote data entry in multi-center clinical trials. Medinfo. 1995;8 Pt 2: 1097.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Lister J, Budin-Jones S, Palmer J, et al. How accurate are asthma diary cards? Thorax. 1989;44:343P.

  19. Chowienczyk PJ, Lawson CP, Morris J, et al. Electronic diary to record physiological measurements. Lancet. 1992;339:251.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Hyland ME, Kenyon CAP, Allen R, et al. Diary keeping in asthma; comparison of written and electronic methods. Br Med J. 1993;306:487–489.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Chowienczyk PJ, Parkin DH, Lawson CP, et al. Do asthma patients correctly record home spirometry measurements? Br Med J. 1994;309:1618.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Tiplady B, Crompton GK, Brackenridge D. Electronic diaries for asthma. Br Med J. 1995;310:1469.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Tiplady B, Crompton GK, Dewar MH, et al. The use of electronic diaries in respiratory studies. Drug Inf J. 1997;31:759–764.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kobak KA, Greist JH, Jefferson JW, et al. Computer-administered clinical rating scales. A review. Psy-chopharmacol. (Berl) 1996;127:291–301.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Papaconstantinou C, Krischer JP. An automated patient registration and treatment randomization system. J Med Syst. 1995;19:445–456.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Lawson ME, Brown PM, Shostak L. Results of a data imaging pilot project. Drug Inf J. 1997;31:193–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Diener-West M, Connor PB, Newhouse MM, et al. Feasibility of keying data from screen-displayed facsimile images in an ongoing trial: the collaborative ocular melanoma study. Control Clin Trials. 1998;19:39–40.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Weiler JM, Meltzer EO, Benson PM, et al. A dose-ranging study of the efficacy and safety of azelastine nasal spray in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis with an acute model. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1994;94:972–980.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Meltzer EO, Weiler JM, Widlitz MD. Comparative outdoor study of the efficacy, onset and duration of action, and safety of cetirizine, loratadine, and placebo for seasonal allergic rhinitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1996;97:617–626.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Shiffman RN, Brandt CA, Freeman BG. Transition to a computer-based record using scannable, structured encounter forms. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1997;151:1247–1253.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Kohane IS, Greenspun P, Fackler J, et al. Building national electronic medical record systems via the world wide web. J Am Med lnf Assoc. 1996;3:191–207.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Kiuchi T, Ohashi Y, Konishi M, et al. A world wide web-based user interface for a data management system for use in multi-institutional clinical trials— development and experimental operation of an automated patient registration and random allocation system. Control Clin Trials. 1996;17:476–493.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Afrin LB, Kuppuswamy V, Slater B, et al. Electronic clinical trial protocol distribution via the world-wide web: a prototype for reducing costs and errors, improving accrual, and saving trees. J Am Med Inf Assoc. 1997;4:25–35.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Halamka JD, Szolovits P, Rind D, et al. A WWW implementation of national recommendations for protecting electronic health information. J Am Med Inf Assoc. 1997;4:458–464.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Hogan WR, Wagner MM. Accuracy of data in computer-based patient records. J Am Med Inf Assoc. 1997;4:342–355.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Sullivan E, Gorko MA, Stellon RC. A statistically-based process for auditing clinical data listings. Drug Inf J. 1997;31:647–653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CompleWare Corporation, PO Box 69, Iowa City, Iowa, 52244, USA

    Amy J. Lampe BBA & John M. Weiler MD

Authors
  1. Amy J. Lampe BBA
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John M. Weiler MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John M. Weiler MD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lampe, A.J., Weiler, J.M. Data Capture from the Sponsors’ And Investigators’ Perspectives: Balancing Quality, Speed, and Cost. Ther Innov Regul Sci 32, 871–886 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1177/009286159803200403

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/009286159803200403

Key Words

Search

Navigation