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
Observational Study
. 2017 Jul:103:89-94.
doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2017.04.015. Epub 2017 Apr 29.

A comparative effectiveness study of eSource used for data capture for a clinical research registry

Amy Harris Nordo  1 , Eric L Eisenstein  2 , Jeffrey Hawley  3 , Sai Vadakkeveedu  3 , Melissa Pressley  3 , Jennifer Pennock  3 , Iain Sanderson  3
Affiliations
Observational Study

A comparative effectiveness study of eSource used for data capture for a clinical research registry

Amy Harris Nordo et al. Int J Med Inform. 2017 Jul.

Abstract

Objective: This pilot study compared eSource-enabled versus traditional manual data transcription (non-eSource methods) for the collection of clinical registry information. The primary study objective was to compare the time spent completing registry forms using eSource versus non-eSource methods The secondary objectives were to compare data quality associated with these two data capture methods and the flexibility of the workflows. This study directly addressed fundamental questions relating to eSource adoption: what time-savings can be realized, and to what extent does eSource improve data quality.

Materials and methods: The study used time and motion methods to compare eSource versus non-eSource data capture workflows for a single center OB/GYN registry. Direct observation by industrial engineers using specialized computer software captured keystrokes, mouse clicks and video recordings of the study team in their normal work environment completing real-time data collection.

Results: The overall average data capture time was reduced with eSource versus non-eSource methods (difference, 151s per case; eSource, 1603s; non-eSource, 1754s; p=0.051). The average data capture time for the demographic data was reduced (difference, 79s per case; eSource, 133s; non-eSource, 213s; p<0.001). This represents a 37% time reduction (95% confidence interval 27% to 47%). eSourced data field transcription errors were also reduced (eSource, 0%; non-eSource, 9%).

Conclusion: The use of eSource versus traditional data transcription was associated with a significant reduction in data entry time and data quality errors. Further studies in other settings are needed to validate these results.

Keywords: Data accuracy; Data collection; Data retrieval; Information extraction; Registries; Time-motion analysis.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Traditional Data Transcription (non-eSource) workflow.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
eSource workflow.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Scannell JW, Blanckley A, Boldon H, et al. Diagnosing the decline in pharmaceutical R & D efficiency. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2012;11(3):191–200. doi: 10.1038/nrd3681. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Munos B. Lessons from 60 years of pharmaceutical innovation. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2009;8(12):959–968. doi: 10.1038/nrd2961. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Getz K. Improving protocol design feasibility to drive drug development economics and performance. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2014;12(11(5)):5069–5080. doi: 10.3390/ijerph110505069. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Eisenstein EL, Collins R, Cracknell BS, et al. Sensible approaches for reducing clinical trial costs. Clin Trials. 2008;5(1):75–84. - PubMed
    1. Morrison BW, Cochran CJ, White JG. Monitoring the quality of conduct of clinical trials: a survey of current practices. Clin Trials. 2011;8(3):342–349. - PubMed

Publication types