The gap between the proletariat and Medidata (or should I say Dassault)
We need a better UX before [TLA] integration
The sheer number and variety of eClinical software companies and buzzwords confuses me.
There is EDC, CTMS, IWRS, IVRS, IWRS, IRT, eSource, eCOA, ePRO and a bunch of more TLAs.
For the life of me I do not understand the difference between eCOA and ePRO and why we need 2 buzzwords for patient reporting.
Here is marketing collateral from a CRO. As you will see – they miss the boat on all the things that are important for site coordinators and study monitors.
We adapt responsively to change in your clinical trial to minimize risk and drive quality outcomes. Clinical research is complicated and it’s easy to get off track due to inexperienced project leaders, inflexible workflows, or the failure to identify risks before they become issues. We derive expert insights from evidence-based processes and strategic services to be the driving force behind quality outcomes, including optimized data, patient safety, reduced time-to-market, and operational savings.
What CRCs and CRAs have to say about the leading eClinical solutions
I recently did an informal poll on Facebook of what problems the CRA/CRC proletariat have to deal with on the job.
I want to thank Tsvetina Dencheva for helping me grok and distill people’s complaints
into 3 central themes.
Theme no. 1 – enter data once
Enable administrators to enter data once and have their authorized user lists, sites and metrics update automatically without all kinds of double and triple work and fancy import/export footwork between different systems. Failing a way of managing things in one place –
at least have better integration between the EDC and the CTMS.
The IT guys euphemistically call this problem information silos. I’ve always thought that they used the word silos (which are used to store animal food) as way of identifying with people who farm, without actually having to get their hands dirty by shovelling silage (which is really smelly btw).
I understand the rationale for having a CTMS and an EDC about as much as I understand the difference between eCOA and ePRO.
Here is some raw data from the informal Facebook survey
If I enter specific data, it would be great if there’s an integrated route to all fields connected to the said data. An easy example is – if I enter a visit, it transfers to my time sheet.
Same goes to contact reports. Apps! All sorts of apps, ctms, verified calculators, edc, ixrs, Electronic TMF. The list goes on and on. How could I forget electronic training logs? Electronic all sorts of log.
There are a lot of things we do day to day that are repetitive and can take away from actually moving studies forward. Thinking things like scanning reg docs, auto capturing of reg doc attributes (to a point), and integration to the TMF. Or better system integration, meaning where we enter a single data point (ie CTMS) and flowing to other systems (ie new site in CTMS, create new site in TMF. Enrolment metrics from EDC to CTMS) and so on.
If only the f**ing CTMS would work properly.
Theme number 2 – single sign-on.
The level of frustration with having to login to different systems is very high. The ultimate solution is to use social login – just login to the different systems with your Google Account and let Google/Firebase authenticate your identity.
Theme number 3 – data integrity
EDC edit check development eats up a lot of time and when poorly designed generates thousands of queries. Not good.
There is a vision of an EDC that understands the data semantics from context of the study protocol.
This is a very cool and advanced notion.
One of the study monitors put it like this:
The EDC should be smart enough to identify nonsense without having to develop a bunch of edit checks each time and have to deal with queries.
The EDC should be able to calculate if a visit is in a proper time window, or if imaging is in a proper time window. Also for oncology if RECIST 1.1 is used, then the EDC should be able to calculate: Body Surface Area, correct dosing based on weight and height of a patient, RECIST 1.1 tumor response and many other things that simply can be calculated.
We specialise in faster submission for connected medical devices. We can shorten your
time to market by 9-12 months with automated patient compliance detection and response.
Call us and we’ll show you how. No buzzwords required.