ArticleBMC medical research methodology2014
Comparison of two data collection processes in clinical studies: electronic and paper case report forms.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Data Quality and Cost-effectiveness Analyses of Electronic and Paper-Based Interviewer-Administered Public Health Surveys: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Trial
- Mobile electronic versus paper case report forms in clinical trials: a randomized controlled trial.BMC medical research methodology · 2017Trial
- Trial
- Design and evaluation of an electronic follow-up questionnaire for patients after percutaneous coronary intervention.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Article
- ISO/TS 21564:2019- based Evaluation of a Semantic Map between Variables in the ISARIC Freestanding Follow Up Survey and ORCHESTRA Studies.Journal of medical systems · 2023Article
- Evaluation of electronic patient-reported outcome assessment in inpatient cancer care: a feasibility study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2023Article
- Data management system for diabetes clinical trials: a pre-post evaluation study.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2023Article
- Article
- Making Progress Monitoring Easier and More Motivating: Developing a Client Data Collection App Incorporating User-Centered Design and Behavioral Economics Insights.Social sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Use of research electronic data capture (REDCap) in a COVID-19 randomized controlled trial: a practical example.BMC medical research methodology · 2021Article
- Electronic forms for patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are an effective, time-efficient, and cost-minimizing alternative to paper forms.Pediatric rheumatology online journal · 2021Article
- Toward e-Scales: Digital Administration of the International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society Rating Scales.Movement disorders clinical practice · 2021Article
- Admissions to a Low-Resource Neonatal Unit in Malawi Using a Mobile App: Digital Perinatal Outcome Audit.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2020Article
- [Technical aspects of quality assurance for intravitreal injections (IVI)].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2020Review
- Improving the Efficacy of the Data Entry Process for Clinical Research With a Natural Language Processing-Driven Medical Information Extraction System: Quantitative Field Research.JMIR medical informatics · 2019Article
- Data Quality and Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Electronic and Paper-Based Interviewer-Administered Public Health Surveys: Protocol for a Systematic Review.JMIR research protocols · 2019Article
- Article
- Electronic case report forms and electronic data capture within clinical trials and pharmacoepidemiology.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundElectronic Case Report Forms (eCRFs) are increasingly chosen by investigators and sponsors of clinical research instead of the traditional pen-and-paper data collection (pCRFs). Previous studies suggested that eCRFs avoided mistakes, shortened the duration of clinical studies and reduced data collection costs.
methodsOur objectives were to describe and contrast both objective and subjective efficiency of pCRF and eCRF use in clinical studies. A total of 27 studies (11 eCRF, 16 pCRF) sponsored by the Paris hospital consortium, conducted and completed between 2001 and 2011 were included. Questionnaires were emailed to investigators of those studies, as well as clinical research associates and data managers working in Paris hospitals, soliciting their level of satisfaction and preferences for eCRFs and pCRFs. Mean costs and timeframes were compared using bootstrap methods, linear and logistic regression.
resultsThe total cost per patient was 374€ ±351 with eCRFs vs. 1,135€ ±1,234 with pCRFs. Time between the opening of the first center and the database lock was 31.7 months Q1 = 24.6; Q3 = 42.8 using eCRFs, vs. 39.8 months Q1 = 31.7; Q3 = 52.2 with pCRFs (p = 0.11). Electronic CRFs were globally preferred by all (31/72 vs. 15/72 for paper) for easier monitoring and improved data quality.
conclusionsThis study found that eCRFs and pCRFs are used in studies with different patient numbers, center numbers and risk. The first ones are more advantageous in large, low-risk studies and gain support from a majority of stakeholders.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.