ArticleESMO real world data and digital oncology2025
Utility of automated data transfer for cancer clinical trials and considerations for implementation.
Article in ESMO real world data and digital oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- AI-based augmentation of oncology clinical trials.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2026Review
- The potential of artificial intelligence in clinical trials.European journal of clinical investigation · 2026Review
- Feasibility assessment of an EHR-integrated research platform for prospective data collection in community oncology practice.npj health systems · 2026Article
- Building better outcomes: A grounded theory approach to understanding creation and management of surgical data systems in Ethiopia.PLOS global public health · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The burden of data collection on site staff for cancer clinical trials is steadily increasing, and inefficiencies in data entry into electronic data capture (EDC) systems lead to poor data quality and delays in reporting. Software that facilitates automated transfer of mapped structured data from the electronic health record (EHR) to EDC can help to address these challenges. Materials and methods: We examined the impact of multi-site usage of an embedded point and click EHR-to-EDC tool on study data capture across multiple phase I cancer clinical trials by conducting a retrospective analysis of volume of and time for data transfer across protocols. Results: During a 15-month observation period, the EHR-to-EDC tool was used to transfer 11 342 individual data points (89% laboratory values, 8% vitals and 3% concomitant medications) representing 955 unique case report form (CRF) submissions. Use was consistent across protocols. The average time for a user to launch, complete and submit a CRF was 37 s (range 15-59 s). Conclusions: This study demonstrates efficiencies in clinical trial conduct provided by EHR-to-EDC technology and supports growing adoption among sites and sponsors, while highlighting how variability in data standards and interoperability across EHR systems pose practical challenges to widespread implementation.
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.