Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2013 Dec 5;8(12):e81890.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0081890. eCollection 2013.

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

Meredith Mealer  1 , John Kittelson  2 , B Taylor Thompson  3 , Arthur P Wheeler  4 , John C Magee  5 , Ronald J Sokol  6 , Marc Moss  7 , Michael G Kahn  6
Affiliations

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

Meredith Mealer et al. PLoS One. .

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Pilot study design.
Nine adult and seven pediatric subjects scheduled for routine monitoring were randomly assigned to Arm A. The same number of study subjects in each network was randomly assigned to Arm B.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Spaar A, Frey M, Turk A, Karrer W, Puhan MA (2009) Recruitment barriers in a randomized controlled trial from the physicians’ perspective: a postal survey. BMC Med Res Methodol 9: 14. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-9-14. PubMed: 19254374. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Duley L, Antman K, Arena J, Avezum A, Blumenthal M et al. (2008) Specific barriers to the conduct of randomized trials. Clin Trials 5: 40–48. doi:10.1177/1740774507087704. PubMed: 18283079. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Edge Cutting. Information (2013) Per-Patient; Clinical Trial Costs Rise; 70% in Three Years. Available: http://www.cuttingedgeinfo.com/2011/per-patient-clinical-trial-costs/ . Accessed 15 May 2013
    1. Concato J, Shah N, Horwitz RI (2000) Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs. N Engl J Med 342: 1887–1892. doi:10.1056/NEJM200006223422507. PubMed: 10861325. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Relton C, Torgerson D, O’Cathain A, Nicholl J (2010) Rethinking pragmatic randomised controlled trials: introducing the “cohort multiple randomised controlled trial”. Design - BMJ 340: c1066. - PubMed