Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41647346›Full record

ArticleESMO real world data and digital oncology2025

Utility of automated data transfer for cancer clinical trials and considerations for implementation.

M Pfeffer, M Deneris, A Shelley, P Salcuni, I Altomare

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. AI-based augmentation of oncology clinical trials.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2026
    Review
  2. The potential of artificial intelligence in clinical trials.European journal of clinical investigation · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

M PfefferFlatiron Health, New York, USA.
M DenerisFlatiron Health, New York, USA.
A ShelleyFlatiron Health, New York, USA.
P SalcuniFlatiron Health, New York, USA.
I AltomareFlatiron Health, New York, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

clinical trialsdata standardsdata transferEHR-to-EDCinteroperability

Identifiers

PMID41647346
PMCPMC12836543

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.