ArticleClinical trials (London, England)2016
Architecture design of a generic centralized adjudication module integrated in a web-based clinical trial management system.
Article in Clinical trials (London, England), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Should we adjudicate outcomes in stroke trials? A systematic review.International journal of stroke : official journal of the International Stroke Society · 2023Pooled it
- Assessment of the Impact of an Endpoint Committee in the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study.American journal of ophthalmology · 2019Trial
- Evolving roles of Data Coordinating Centers in multisite research: Challenges and adaptations from a rapid scoping review.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2026Review
- Key components and IT assistance of participant management in clinical research: a scoping review.JAMIA open · 2020Article
- Creating an academic research organization to efficiently design, conduct, coordinate, and analyze clinical trials: The Center for Clinical Trials & Data Coordination.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2019Article
- Assessment of the End Point Adjudication Process on the Results of the Platelet-Oriented Inhibition in New TIA and Minor Ischemic Stroke (POINT) Trial: A Secondary Analysis.JAMA network open · 2019Article
- Utilization of a Clinical Trial Management System for the Whole Clinical Trial Process as an Integrated Database: System Development.Journal of medical Internet research · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCentralized outcome adjudication has been used widely in multicenter clinical trials in order to prevent potential biases and to reduce variations in important safety and efficacy outcome assessments. Adjudication procedures could vary significantly among different studies. In practice, the coordination of outcome adjudication procedures in many multicenter clinical trials remains as a manual process with low efficiency and high risk of delay. Motivated by the demands from two large clinical trial networks, a generic outcome adjudication module has been developed by the network's data management center within a homegrown clinical trial management system. In this article, the system design strategy and database structure are presented.
methodsA generic database model was created to transfer different adjudication procedures into a unified set of sequential adjudication steps. Each adjudication step was defined by one activate condition, one lock condition, one to five categorical data items to capture adjudication results, and one free text field for general comments. Based on this model, a generic outcome adjudication user interface and a generic data processing program were developed within a homegrown clinical trial management system to provide automated coordination of outcome adjudication.
resultsBy the end of 2014, this generic outcome adjudication module had been implemented in 10 multicenter trials. A total of 29 adjudication procedures were defined with the number of adjudication steps varying from 1 to 7. The implementation of a new adjudication procedure in this generic module took an experienced programmer 1 or 2 days. A total of 7336 outcome events had been adjudicated and 16,235 adjudication step activities had been recorded. In a multicenter trial, 1144 safety outcome event submissions went through a three-step adjudication procedure and reported a median of 3.95 days from safety event case report form submission to adjudication completion. In another trial, 277 clinical outcome events were adjudicated by a six-step procedure and took a median of 23.84 days from outcome event case report form submission to adjudication procedure completion.
conclusionA generic outcome adjudication module integrated in the clinical trial management system made the automated coordination of efficacy and safety outcome adjudication a reality.
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.