Assessing the impact of risk-based data monitoring on outcomes for a paediatric multicentre randomised controlled trial.

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL Clinical Trials Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-29 DOI:10.1177/17407745231222019
Renate Le Marsney, Kerry Johnson, Jenipher Chumbes Flores, Shelley Coetzer, Jennifer Darvas, Carmel Delzoppo, Arielle Jolly, Kate Masterson, Claire Sherring, Hannah Thomson, Endrias Ergetu, Patricia Gilholm, Kristen S Gibbons
{"title":"Assessing the impact of risk-based data monitoring on outcomes for a paediatric multicentre randomised controlled trial.","authors":"Renate Le Marsney, Kerry Johnson, Jenipher Chumbes Flores, Shelley Coetzer, Jennifer Darvas, Carmel Delzoppo, Arielle Jolly, Kate Masterson, Claire Sherring, Hannah Thomson, Endrias Ergetu, Patricia Gilholm, Kristen S Gibbons","doi":"10.1177/17407745231222019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background/aims: </strong>Regulatory guidelines recommend that sponsors develop a risk-based approach to monitoring clinical trials. However, there is a lack of evidence to guide the effective implementation of monitoring activities encompassed in this approach. The aim of this study was to assess the efficiency and impact of the risk-based monitoring approach used for a multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing treatments in paediatric patients undergoing cardiac bypass surgery.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a secondary analysis of data from a randomised controlled trial that implemented targeted source data verification as part of the risk-based monitoring approach. Monitoring duration and source to database error rates were calculated across the monitored trial dataset. The monitored and unmonitored trial dataset, and simulated trial datasets with differing degrees of source data verification and cohort sizes were compared for their effect on trial outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 106,749 critical data points across 1,282 participants were verified from source data either remotely or on-site during the trial. The total time spent monitoring was 365 hours, with a median (interquartile range) of 10 (7, 16) minutes per participant. An overall source to database error rate of 3.1% was found, and this did not differ between treatment groups. A low rate of error was found for all outcomes undergoing 100% source data verification, with the exception of two secondary outcomes with error rates >10%. Minimal variation in trial outcomes were found between the unmonitored and monitored datasets. Reduced degrees of source data verification and reduced cohort sizes assessed using simulated trial datasets had minimal impact on trial outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Targeted source data verification of data critical to trial outcomes, which carried with it a substantial time investment, did not have an impact on study outcomes in this trial. This evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of targeted source data verification contributes to the evidence-base regarding the context where reduced emphasis should be placed on source data verification as the foremost monitoring activity.</p>","PeriodicalId":10685,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Trials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11304638/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Trials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17407745231222019","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background/aims: Regulatory guidelines recommend that sponsors develop a risk-based approach to monitoring clinical trials. However, there is a lack of evidence to guide the effective implementation of monitoring activities encompassed in this approach. The aim of this study was to assess the efficiency and impact of the risk-based monitoring approach used for a multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing treatments in paediatric patients undergoing cardiac bypass surgery.

Methods: This is a secondary analysis of data from a randomised controlled trial that implemented targeted source data verification as part of the risk-based monitoring approach. Monitoring duration and source to database error rates were calculated across the monitored trial dataset. The monitored and unmonitored trial dataset, and simulated trial datasets with differing degrees of source data verification and cohort sizes were compared for their effect on trial outcomes.

Results: In total, 106,749 critical data points across 1,282 participants were verified from source data either remotely or on-site during the trial. The total time spent monitoring was 365 hours, with a median (interquartile range) of 10 (7, 16) minutes per participant. An overall source to database error rate of 3.1% was found, and this did not differ between treatment groups. A low rate of error was found for all outcomes undergoing 100% source data verification, with the exception of two secondary outcomes with error rates >10%. Minimal variation in trial outcomes were found between the unmonitored and monitored datasets. Reduced degrees of source data verification and reduced cohort sizes assessed using simulated trial datasets had minimal impact on trial outcomes.

Conclusions: Targeted source data verification of data critical to trial outcomes, which carried with it a substantial time investment, did not have an impact on study outcomes in this trial. This evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of targeted source data verification contributes to the evidence-base regarding the context where reduced emphasis should be placed on source data verification as the foremost monitoring activity.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估基于风险的数据监控对儿科多中心随机对照试验结果的影响。
背景/目的:监管指南建议申办者制定基于风险的临床试验监控方法。然而,目前还缺乏证据来指导如何有效实施该方法所包含的监控活动。本研究旨在评估一项多中心随机对照试验中采用的基于风险的监控方法的效率和影响,该试验比较了对接受心脏搭桥手术的儿科患者的治疗方法:这是对一项随机对照试验数据的二次分析,该试验实施了有针对性的源数据验证,作为基于风险的监控方法的一部分。计算了受监控试验数据集的监控持续时间和源数据到数据库的错误率。比较了受监控和未受监控的试验数据集,以及源数据验证程度和群组规模不同的模拟试验数据集对试验结果的影响:在试验过程中,通过远程或现场源数据对 1,282 名参与者的 106,749 个关键数据点进行了验证。监测总耗时为 365 小时,每位参与者的监测时间中位数(四分位数间距)为 10(7,16)分钟。从数据源到数据库的总体错误率为 3.1%,不同治疗组之间没有差异。除两个次要结果的错误率大于 10% 外,所有接受 100% 源数据验证的结果的错误率都很低。未监控数据集和监控数据集之间的试验结果差异极小。使用模拟试验数据集评估的源数据验证程度降低和队列规模缩小对试验结果的影响微乎其微:结论:对试验结果至关重要的数据进行有针对性的源数据验证需要投入大量时间,但这对试验结果没有影响。对有针对性的源数据验证的成本效益进行评估,有助于提供证据,说明在何种情况下应减少对源数据验证的重视,将其作为最重要的监测活动。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Trials
Clinical Trials 医学-医学:研究与实验
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
3.70%
发文量
82
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical Trials is dedicated to advancing knowledge on the design and conduct of clinical trials related research methodologies. Covering the design, conduct, analysis, synthesis and evaluation of key methodologies, the journal remains on the cusp of the latest topics, including ethics, regulation and policy impact.
期刊最新文献
Proceedings of the University of Pennsylvania 15th annual conference on statistical issues in clinical trials: Advances in time-to-event analyses in clinical trials-challenges and opportunities. Participant’s treatment guesses and adverse events in back pain trials: Nocebo in action? 15th Annual University of Pennsylvania conference on statistical issues in clinical trial/advances in time to event analyses in clinical trials (morning panel discussion). Estimands in clinical trials of complex disease processes. Commentary on Astrachan et al. The transmutation of research risk in pragmatic clinical trials.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1