ArticleJAMIA open2025
Evaluating the Impact of Electronic Health Record to Electronic Data Capture Technology on Workflow Efficiency: a Site Perspective.
Article in JAMIA open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Transitioning from invasive to liquid biopsy techniques: a bibliometric analysis and prospective insights on biomarkers in lupus nephritis.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Advancing Clinical Trial Efficiency and Data Accuracy through Direct EHR-to-EDC Integration.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2026Article
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
Abstract
Introduction: Clinical trial data is still predominantly manually entered by site staff into Electronic Data Capture (EDC) systems. This process of abstracting and manually transcribing patient data is time-consuming, inefficient and error prone. Use of Electronic Health Record to Electronic Data Capture (EHR-To-EDC) technologies that digitize this process would improve these inefficiencies. Objectives: This study measured the impact of EHR-To-EDC technology on the data entry workflow of clinical trial data managers. The primary objective was to compare the speed and accuracy of the EHR-To-EDC enabled data entry method to the traditional, manual method. The secondary objective was to measure end user satisfaction. Materials and Methods: Five data managers ranging in experience from 9 months to over 2 years, were assigned an investigator-initiated, Memorial Sloan Kettering-sponsored oncology study within their disease area of expertise. Each data manager performed one-hour of manual data entry, and a week later, one-hour of data entry using IgniteData's EHR-To-EDC solution, Archer, on a predetermined set of patients, timepoints and data domains (labs, vitals). The data entered into the EDC were compared side-by-side and used to evaluate the speed and accuracy of the EHR-To-EDC enabled method versus traditional, manual data entry. A user satisfaction survey using a 5-point Likert scale was used to collect feedback regarding the selected platform's learnability, ease of use, perceived time savings, perceived efficiency, and preference over the manual method. Results: The EHR-To-EDC method resulted in 58% more data entered versus the manual method (difference, 1745 data points; manual, 3023 data points; EHR-To-EDC, 4768 data points). The number of data entry errors was reduced by 99% (manual, 100 data points; EHR-To-EDC, 1 data point). Regarding user satisfaction, data managers either agreed or strongly agreed that the EHR-To-EDC workflow was easy to learn (5/5), easy to use (4.6/5), saved time (5/5), was more efficient (4.8/5), and preferred it over the manual entry workflow (4/5). Conclusion: EHR-To-EDC enabled data entry increases data manager productivity, reduces errors and is preferred by data managers over manual data entry.
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.