ArticleContemporary clinical trials2024
A risk-based monitoring approach to source data monitoring and documenting monitoring findings.
Article in Contemporary clinical trials, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundClinical trial monitoring is evolving from labor-intensive to targeted approaches. The traditional 100% Source Data Monitoring (SDM) approach fails to prioritize data by significance, diverting attention from critical elements. Despite regulatory guidance on Risk-Based Monitoring (RBM), its widespread implementation has been slow.
methodsOur study teams assess the study's overall risk, document heightened and critical risks, and create a study-specific risk-based monitoring plan, integrating SDM and Central Data Monitoring (CDM). SDM combines a fixed list of pre-identified variables and a list of randomly identified variables to monitor. Identifying variables follows a two-step approach: first, a random sample of participants is selected, second, a random set of variables for each participant selected is identified. Sampling weights prioritize critical variables. Regular team meetings are held to discuss and compile significant findings into a Study Monitoring Report.
resultsWe present a random SDM sample and a Study Monitoring Report. The random SDM output includes a look-up table for selected database elements. The report provides a holistic view of the study issues and overall health.
conclusionsThe proposed random sampling method is used to monitor a representative set of critical variables, while the Study Monitoring Report is written to summarize significant monitoring findings and data trends. The report allows the sponsor to assess the current status of the study and data effectively. Communicating and sharing emerging insights facilitates timely adjustments of future monitoring activities, optimizing efficiencies, and study outcomes.
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.