Quantifying data quality for clinical trials using electronic data capture.

BACKGROUND: Historically, only partial assessments of data quality have been performed in clinical trials, for which the most common method of measuring database error rates has been to compare the case report form (CRF) to database entries and count discrepancies. Importantly, errors arising from medical record abstraction and transcription are rarely evaluated as part of such quality assessments. Electronic Data Capture (EDC) technology has had a further impact, as paper CRFs typically leveraged for quality measurement are not used in EDC processes. METHODS AND PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The National Institute on Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network has developed, implemented, and evaluated methodology for holistically assessing data quality on EDC trials. We characterize the average source-to-database error rate (14.3 errors per 10,000 fields) for the first year of use of the new evaluation method. This error rate was significantly lower than the average of published error rates for source-to-database audits, and was similar to CRF-to-database error rates reported in the published literature. We attribute this largely to an absence of medical record abstraction on the trials we examined, and to an outpatient setting characterized by less acute patient conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Historically, medical record abstraction is the most significant source of error by an order of magnitude, and should be measured and managed during the course of clinical trials. Source-to-database error rates are highly dependent on the amount of structured data collection in the clinical setting and on the complexity of the medical record, dependencies that should be considered when developing data quality benchmarks.

A comparison of the effectiveness of the team-based learning readiness assessments completed at home to those completed in class.

PURPOSE: The readiness assurance process (RAP) of team-based learning (TBL) is an important element that ensures that students come prepared to learn. However, the RAP can use a significant amount of class time which could otherwise be used for application exercises. The authors administered the TBL-associated RAP in class or individual readiness assurance tests (iRATs) at home to compare medical student performance and learning preference for physiology content. METHODS: Using cross-over study design, the first year medical student TBL teams were divided into two groups. One group was administered iRATs and group readiness assurance tests (gRATs) consisting of physiology questions during scheduled class time. The other group was administered the same iRAT questions at home, and did not complete a gRAT. To compare effectiveness of the two administration methods, both groups completed the same 12-question physiology assessment during dedicated class time. Four weeks later, the entire process was repeated, with each group administered the RAP using the opposite method. RESULTS: The performance on the physiology assessment after at-home administration of the iRAT was equivalent to performance after traditional in-class administration of the RAP. In addition, a majority of students preferred the at-home method of administration and reported that the at-home method was more effective in helping them learn course content. CONCLUSION: The at-home administration of the iRAT proved effective. The at-home administration method is a promising alternative to conventional iRATs and gRATs with the goal of preserving valuable in-class time for TBL application exercises.