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
. 2015 Apr;79(4):660-8.
doi: 10.1111/bcp.12531.

Impact of source data verification on data quality in clinical trials: an empirical post hoc analysis of three phase 3 randomized clinical trials

Jeppe Ragnar Andersen  1 , Inger Byrjalsen, Asger Bihlet, Faidra Kalakou, Hans Christian Hoeck, Gitte Hansen, Henrik Bo Hansen, Morten Asser Karsdal, Bente Juel Riis
Affiliations

Impact of source data verification on data quality in clinical trials: an empirical post hoc analysis of three phase 3 randomized clinical trials

Jeppe Ragnar Andersen et al. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2015 Apr.

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this project was to perform an empirical evaluation of the impact of on site source data verification (SDV) on the data quality in a clinical trial database to guide an informed decision on selection of the monitoring approach.

Methods: We used data from three randomized phase III trials monitored with a combination of complete SDV or partial SDV. After database lock, individual subject data were extracted from the clinical database and subjected to post hoc complete SDV. Error rates were calculated with focus on the degree of on study monitoring and relevance and analyzed for potential impact on end points.

Results: Data from a total of 2566 subjects including more than 3 million data fields were 100% source data verified post hoc. An overall error rate of 0.45% was found. No sites had 0% errors. 100% SDV yielded an error rate of 0.27% as compared with partial SDV having an error rate of 0.53% (P < 0.0001). Comparing partly and fully monitored subjects, minor differences were identified between variables of major importance to efficacy or safety.

Conclusions: The findings challenge the notion that a 0% error rate is obtainable with on site monitoring. Data indicate consistently low error rates across the three trials analyzed. The use of complete vs. partial SDV offers a marginal absolute error rate reduction of 0.26%, i.e. a need to perform complete SDV of about 370 data points to avoid one unspecified error and does not support complete SDV as a means of providing meaningful improvements in data accuracy.

Keywords: cost-benefit; data error analysis; monitoring; risk-based monitoring; source data verification.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Food and Drug Administration. 2011. 21 CFR part 312, subpart D and 21 CFR part 812, subpart C. Ref Type: Bill/Resolution.
    1. European Medicines Agency. ICH harmonised tripartite guideline E6: note for guidance on good clinical practice (PMP/ICH/135/95). 1-6-2011. Ref Type: Bill/Resolution.
    1. Morrison BW, Cochran CJ, White JG, Harley J, Kleppinger CF, Liu A, Mitchel JT, Nickerson DF, Zacharias CR, Kramer JM, Neaton JD. Monitoring the quality of conduct of clinical trials: a survey of current practices. Clin Trials. 2011;8:342–349. - PubMed
    1. Food and Drug Administration. 1988. Guidance for industry: guideline for monitoring of clinical investigations. Ref Type: Generic.
    1. Bakobaki JM, Rauchenberger M, Joffe N, McCormack S, Stenning S, Meredith S. The potential for central monitoring techniques to replace on-site monitoring: findings from an international multi-centre clinical trial. Clin Trials. 2012;9:257–264. - PubMed

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources