Trial reportTrials2024
Effectiveness of remote risk-based monitoring and potential benefits for combination with direct data capture.
Trial report in 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.
- Miniaturised Extraction Techniques in Personalised Medicine: Analytical Opportunities and Translational Perspectives.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn recent years, alternative monitoring approaches, such as risk-based and remote monitoring techniques, have been recommended instead of traditional on-site monitoring to achieve more efficient monitoring. Remote risk-based monitoring (R2BM) is a monitoring technique that combines risk-based and remote monitoring and focuses on the detection of critical data and process errors. Direct data capture (DDC), which directly collects electronic source data, can facilitate R2BM by minimizing the extent of source documents that must be reviewed and reducing the additional workload on R2BM. In this study, we evaluated the effectiveness of R2BM and the synergistic effect of combining R2BM with DDC.
methodsR2BM was prospectively conducted with eight participants in a randomized clinical trial using a remote monitoring system that uploaded photographs of source documents to a cloud location. Critical data and processes were verified by R2BM, and later, all were confirmed by on-site monitoring to evaluate the ability of R2BM to detect critical data and process errors and the workload of uploading photographs for clinical trial staff. In addition, the reduction of the number of uploaded photographs was evaluated by assuming that the DDC was introduced for data collection.
resultsOf the 4645 data points, 20.9% (n = 973, 95% confidence interval = 19.8-22.2) were identified as critical. All critical data errors corresponding to 5.4% (n = 53/973, 95% confidence interval = 4.1-7.1) of the critical data and critical process errors were detectable by R2BM. The mean number of uploaded photographs and the mean time to upload them per visit per participant were 34.4 ± 11.9 and 26.5 ± 11.8 min (mean ± standard deviation), respectively. When assuming that DDC was introduced for data collection, 45.0% (95% confidence interval = 42.2-47.9) of uploaded photographs for R2BM were reduced.
conclusionsR2BM can detect 100% of the critical data and process errors without on-site monitoring. Combining R2BM with DDC reduces the workload of R2BM and further improves its efficiency.
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.