Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37368468›Full record

ReviewJournal of medical Internet research2023

Reducing Clinical Trial Monitoring Resources and Costs With Remote Monitoring: Retrospective Study Comparing On-Site Versus Hybrid Monitoring.

Zhiying Fu, Xiaohong Liu, Shuhua Zhao, Yannan Yuan, Min Jiang

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of medical Internet research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

5 authors.

Zhiying FuPeking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, Beijing, China.ORCID 0000-0002-2152-0828
Xiaohong LiuPeking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, Beijing, China.ORCID 0009-0006-4828-8017
Shuhua ZhaoPeking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, Beijing, China.ORCID 0009-0004-6792-3085
Yannan YuanPeking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, Beijing, China.ORCID 0000-0001-9249-7576
Min JiangPeking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, Beijing, China.ORCID 0000-0003-2706-8526

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical research associates (CRAs) monitor the progress of a trial, verify the data collected, and ensure that the trial is carried out and reported in accordance with the trial protocol, standard operating procedures, and relevant laws and regulations. In response to monitoring challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic, Peking University Cancer Hospital launched a remote monitoring system and established a monitoring model, combining on-site and remote monitoring of clinical trials. Considering the increasing digitization of clinical trials, it is important to determine the optimal monitoring model for the general benefit of centers conducting clinical trials worldwide.

objectiveWe sought to summarize our practical experience of a hybrid model of remote and on-site monitoring of clinical trials and provide guidance for clinical trial monitoring management.

methodsWe evaluated 201 trials conducted by our hospital that used on-site monitoring alone or a hybrid monitoring model, of which 91 trials used on-site monitoring alone (arm A) and 110 used a hybrid model of remote and on-site monitoring (arm B). We reviewed trial monitoring reports from June 20, 2021, to June 20, 2022, and used a customized questionnaire to collect and compare the following information: monitoring cost of trials in the 2 models as a sum of the CRAs' transportation (eg, taxi fare and air fare), accommodation, and meal costs; differences in monitoring frequency; the number of monitored documents; and monitoring duration.

resultsFrom June 20, 2021, to June 20, 2022, a total of 320 CRAs representing 201 sponsors used the remote monitoring system for source data review and the verification of data from 3299 patients in 320 trials. Arm A trials were monitored 728 times and arm B trials were monitored 849 times. The hybrid model in arm B had 52.9% (449/849) remote visits and 48.1% (409/849) on-site visits. The number of patients' visits that could be reviewed in the hybrid monitoring model increased by 34% (4.70/13.80; P=.004) compared with that in the traditional model, whereas the duration of monitoring decreased by 13.8% (3.96/28.61; P=.03) and the total cost of monitoring decreased by 46.2% (CNY ¥188.74/408.80; P<.001). These differences were shown by nonparametric testing to be statistically significant (P<.05).

conclusionsThe hybrid monitoring model can ensure timely detection of monitoring issues, improve monitoring efficiency, and reduce the cost of clinical trials and should therefore be applied more broadly in future clinical studies.

Indexed as

COVID-19NeoplasmsClinical Trials as TopicHumansMonitoring, PhysiologicPandemicsRetrospective Studiesclinical trialcosteconomichybridhybrid monitoring modelmanagementmonitoringon-site monitoringremote monitoringresearch managementresearch qualityscientific researchtrial managementtrial monitoringtrials methodology

Identifiers

PMID37368468
PMCPMC10337412

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.