Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39651464›Full record

ArticleContemporary clinical trials communications2024

Defining methods to improve eSource site start-up practices.

Amy E Cramer, Linda S King, Michael T Buckley, Peter Casteleyn, Cory Ennis, Muayad Hamidi, Gonçalo M C Rodrigues, Denise C Snyder, Aruna Vattikola, Eric L Eisenstein

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Contemporary clinical trials communications, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Amy E CramerJohnson & Johnson Innovative Medicine, Titusville, NJ, USA.
Linda S KingAstellas Pharma, Northbrook, IL, USA.
Michael T BuckleyMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Peter CasteleynJohnson & Johnson Innovative Medicine, Beerse, BE, USA.
Cory EnnisDuke University School of Medicine, Vice Dean's Office, Durham, NC, USA.
Muayad HamidiUT Health San Antonio, Department of Population Health Sciences, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Gonçalo M C RodriguesMedical Program Management Department, Janssen-Cilag, S.A., Lisbon, Portugal.
Denise C SnyderDuke University School of Medicine, Duke Office of Clinical Research, Durham, NC, USA.
Aruna VattikolaMerck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA.
Eric L EisensteinDuke University, School of Medicine, Department of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI SELWYN M VICKERS · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
Support for QA/QC for Prior Approval ProcessUL1TR002553 · NCATS · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI LI, JENNIFER S, MCNAMARA, JAMES O. · 2018 to 2023
$58.5M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002553NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: eSource software that transfers patient electronic health record data into a clinical trial electronic case report form holds promise for increasing data quality while reducing data collection, monitoring and source document verification costs. Integrating eSource into multicenter clinical trial start-up procedures could facilitate the use of eSource technologies in clinical trials. Methods: We conducted a qualitative integrative analysis to identify eSource site start-up key steps, challenges that might occur in executing those steps, and potential solutions to those challenges. We then conducted a value analysis to determine the challenges and solutions with the greatest impacts for eSource implementation teams. Results: There were 16 workshop participants: 10 pharmaceutical sponsor, 3 academic site, and 1 eSource vendor representative. Participants identified 36 Site Start-Up Key Steps, 11 Site Start-Up Challenges, and 14 Site Start-Up Solutions for eSource-enabled studies. Participants also identified 77 potential impacts of the Challenges upon the Site Start-Up Key Steps and 70 ways in which the Solutions might impact Site Start-Up Challenges. The most important Challenges were: [1] not being able to identify a site eSource champion and [2] not agreeing on an eSource approach. The most important Solutions were: [1] eSource vendors accepting electronic data in the Health Level 7 Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (HL7® FHIR®) standard, [2] creating standard content for eSource-related legal documents, and [3] creating a common eSource site readiness checklist. Conclusions: Site start-up for eSource-enabled multi-center clinical trials is a complex socio-technical problem. This study's Start-Up Solutions provide initial steps for scalable eSource implementation.

Indexed as

Clinical researchClinical trialElectronic data captureElectronic health recordseSourceHealth information technology

Identifiers

PMID39651464
PMCPMC11625275

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.