Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19261946›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA

Developing regulatory-compliant electronic case report forms for clinical trials: experience with the demand trial.

Bogdan Ene-Iordache, Sergio Carminati, Luca Antiga, Nadia Rubis, Piero Ruggenenti, Giuseppe Remuzzi, Andrea Remuzzi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Understanding the global epidemiology of pediatric critical illness: the power, pitfalls, and practicalities of point prevalence studies.Pediatric critical care medicine : a journal of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the World Federation of Pediatric Intensive and Critical Care Societies · 2014
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. IT Infrastructure Components for Biobanking.Applied clinical informatics · 2010
    Article
  15. Data sharing: A viable resource for future.Perspectives in clinical research
    Review
  16. Paperless clinical trials: Myth or reality?Indian journal of pharmacology
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Bogdan Ene-IordacheLaboratory of Biomedical Technologies, Clinical Research Center for Rare Diseases Aldo e Cele Dacò, Via G.B. Camozzi 3, 24020 Ranica (BG), Italy. bodgan@marionegri.it
Sergio Carminati
Luca Antiga
Nadia Rubis
Piero Ruggenenti
Giuseppe Remuzzi
Andrea Remuzzi

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of electronic case report forms (CRF) to gather data in randomized clinical trials has grown to progressively replace paper-based forms. Computerized form designs must ensure the same data quality expected of paper CRF, by following Good Clinical Practice rules. Electronic data capture (EDC) tools must also comply with applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. Here the authors focus on the development of computerized systems for clinical trials implementing FDA and EU recommendations and regulations, and describe a laptop-based electronic CRF used in a randomized, multicenter clinical trial.

Indexed as

User-Computer InterfaceComputer SystemsDatabases, FactualEuropean UnionGovernment RegulationInformation Storage and RetrievalMedical Records Systems, ComputerizedRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicUnited States

Identifiers

PMID19261946
PMCPMC2732224

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.