Trial reportBMC medical research methodology2026
Optimising data completeness and quality in multicentre randomised clinical trials using central data monitoring: a pragmatic approach.
Trial report in BMC medical research methodology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRandomised clinical trial data monitoring is essential for ensuring quality and adherence to protocols, often achieved through on-site methods. However, challenges like the COVID-19 pandemic have highlighted limitations. Central data monitoring offers an alternative, leveraging digital capabilities and diverse expertise.
methodsThe SafeBoosC-III trial, randomising 1,601 preterm infants across 70 sites, was a pragmatic trial offering detailed education of the investigators before launch. During the trial, we conducted pre-protocolised central data monitoring encompassing monthly data checks, data completeness assessments, and statistical analyses. Discrepancies were primarily identified through visual interpretation of data.
resultsThroughout the trial, meticulous central monitoring helped keeping missing data at only 1.4%. Of 43,965 data points reviewed, 338 were flagged, with 81 (0.2% of all data and 24.0% of flagged data) corrected after investigation.
conclusionsThe methodology of combining manual investigation with statistical tools effectively minimised data errors, enhancing validity. This approach in the SafeBoosC-III trial emphasises the importance of ongoing central data monitoring in clinical trials. Standardised protocols for such monitoring are crucial for ensuring data quality and accelerating the validation process in future trials.
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.