Suppr超能文献

两个国家临床试验网络中的远程源文件验证:一项试点研究。

Remote source document verification in two national clinical trials networks: a pilot study.

作者信息

Mealer Meredith, Kittelson John, Thompson B Taylor, Wheeler Arthur P, Magee John C, Sokol Ronald J, Moss Marc, Kahn Michael G

机构信息

Division of Pulmonary Sciences and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado, United States of America.

Department of Biostatistics and Informatics, Colorado School of Public Health, Aurora, Colorado, United States of America ; Colorado Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Center, Aurora, Colorado, United States of America.

出版信息

PLoS One. 2013 Dec 5;8(12):e81890. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0081890. eCollection 2013.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Barriers to executing large-scale randomized controlled trials include costs, complexity, and regulatory requirements. We hypothesized that source document verification (SDV) via remote electronic monitoring is feasible.

METHODS

Five hospitals from two NIH sponsored networks provided remote electronic access to study monitors. We evaluated pre-visit remote SDV compared to traditional on-site SDV using a randomized convenience sample of all study subjects due for a monitoring visit. The number of data values verified and the time to perform remote and on-site SDV was collected.

RESULTS

Thirty-two study subjects were randomized to either remote SDV (N=16) or traditional on-site SDV (N=16). Technical capabilities, remote access policies and regulatory requirements varied widely across sites. In the adult network, only 14 of 2965 data values (0.47%) could not be located remotely. In the traditional on-site SDV arm, 3 of 2608 data values (0.12%) required coordinator help. In the pediatric network, all 198 data values in the remote SDV arm and all 183 data values in the on-site SDV arm were located. Although not statistically significant there was a consistent trend for more time consumed per data value (minutes +/- SD): Adult 0.50 +/- 0.17 min vs. 0.39 +/- 0.10 min (two-tailed t-test p=0.11); Pediatric 0.99 +/- 1.07 min vs. 0.56 +/- 0.61 min (p=0.37) and time per case report form: Adult: 4.60 +/- 1.42 min vs. 3.60 +/- 0.96 min (p=0.10); Pediatric: 11.64 +/- 7.54 min vs. 6.07 +/- 3.18 min (p=0.10) using remote SDV.

CONCLUSIONS

Because each site had different policies, requirements, and technologies, a common approach to assimilating monitors into the access management system could not be implemented. Despite substantial technology differences, more than 99% of data values were successfully monitored remotely. This pilot study demonstrates the feasibility of remote monitoring and the need to develop consistent access policies for remote study monitoring.

摘要

目的

开展大规模随机对照试验的障碍包括成本、复杂性和监管要求。我们假设通过远程电子监测进行源文件验证(SDV)是可行的。

方法

来自两个美国国立卫生研究院资助网络的五家医院为研究监测人员提供了远程电子访问权限。我们使用所有预定进行监测访视的研究对象的随机便利样本,将访视前远程SDV与传统现场SDV进行了评估。收集了验证的数据值数量以及执行远程和现场SDV的时间。

结果

32名研究对象被随机分为远程SDV组(N = 16)或传统现场SDV组(N = 16)。各站点的技术能力、远程访问政策和监管要求差异很大。在成人网络中,2965个数据值中只有14个(0.47%)无法远程定位。在传统现场SDV组中,2608个数据值中有3个(0.12%)需要协调员协助。在儿科网络中,远程SDV组的所有198个数据值和现场SDV组的所有183个数据值都已定位。尽管无统计学意义,但每个数据值消耗的时间存在一致趋势(分钟±标准差):成人0.50±0.17分钟对0.39±0.10分钟(双尾t检验p = 0.11);儿科0.99±1.07分钟对0.56±0.61分钟(p = 0.37),以及每份病例报告表的时间:成人:4.60±1.42分钟对3.60±0.96分钟(p = 0.10);儿科:11.64±7.54分钟对6.07±3.18分钟(p = 0.10),采用远程SDV。

结论

由于每个站点都有不同的政策、要求和技术,无法实施将监测人员纳入访问管理系统的通用方法。尽管技术差异很大,但超过99%的数据值通过远程成功监测。这项初步研究证明了远程监测的可行性以及为远程研究监测制定一致访问政策的必要性。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/5e55/3857788/620427a05df6/pone.0081890.g001.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验