首页> 外文OA文献 >Comparison of electronic data capture (EDC) with the standard data capture method for clinical trial data.
【2h】

Comparison of electronic data capture (EDC) with the standard data capture method for clinical trial data.

机译:电子数据捕获(EDC)与用于临床试验数据的标准数据捕获方法的比较。

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

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.
机译:背景:传统上,临床研究依靠病例报告表收集数据,随后将其输入数据库以创建电子记录。尽管已经建立了很好的方法,但是这种方法既耗时又容易出错。这项研究比较了四种电子数据捕获(EDC)方法和常规方法在数据捕获的持续时间和准确性方面的差异。它是在西非的环境中进行的,临床试验涉及从城市,农村和通常是偏远地区收集数据。方法/主要发现:在面对面访谈中评估了三种常用的EDC工具。上网本,PDA和平板电脑。通过第四种方法评估了通过手机进行电话采访时的EDC性能。 Graeco拉丁方研究设计允许将所有四种方法与标准纸质记录进行比较,然后进行数据双重输入,同时控制诸如面试顺序,面试官和受访者等可能的混淆因素。在三周的研究期内,所有EDC方法的错误率均大大降低。在研究的最后一周,上网本(5.1%,CI95%:3.5-7.2%)和平板电脑(5.2%,CI95%:3.7-7.4%)的数据准确性与笔记本电脑的准确性没有显着差异。常规纸质方法(3.6%,CI95%:2.2-5.5%),但PDA(7.9%,CI95%:6.0-10.5%)和电话(6.3%,CI95%4.6-8.6%)的错误率仍然存在明显更高。尽管进行EDC采访的时间略长,但下载后即可轻松获得数据,从而使EDC的时间更有效。与数字,单选和跳过字段相比,自由文本和日期字段的错误率更高。结论:与基于纸张的方法相比,EDC解决方案具有产生相似数据准确性的潜力。鉴于从数据收集到锁定数据库的时间大大减少,EDC有望降低与研究相关的成本。但是,成功实施EDC需要调整工作流程和重新分配资源。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号