BACKGROUND: Classical monitoring approaches rely on extensive on-site visits and source data verification. These activities are associated with high cost and a limited contribution to data quality. Central statistical monitoring is of particular interest to address these shortcomings. PURPOSE: This article outlines the principles of central statistical monitoring and the challenges of implementing it in actual trials. METHODS: A statistical approach to central monitoring is based on a large number of statistical tests performed on all variables collected in the database, in order to identify centers that differ from the others. The tests generate a high-dimensional matrix of p-values, which can be analyzed by statistical methods and bioinformatic tools to identify extreme centers. RESULTS: Results from actual trials are provided to illustrate typical findings that can be expected from a central statistical monitoring approach, which detects abnormal patterns that were not (or could not have been) detected by on-site monitoring. LIMITATIONS: Central statistical monitoring can only address problems present in the data. Important aspects of trial conduct such as a lack of informed consent documentation, for instance, require other approaches. The results provided here are empirical examples from a limited number of studies. CONCLUSION: Central statistical monitoring can both optimize on-site monitoring and improve data quality and as such provides a cost-effective way of meeting regulatory requirements for clinical trials.
BACKGROUND: Classical monitoring approaches rely on extensive on-site visits and source data verification. These activities are associated with high cost and a limited contribution to data quality. Central statistical monitoring is of particular interest to address these shortcomings. PURPOSE: This article outlines the principles of central statistical monitoring and the challenges of implementing it in actual trials. METHODS: A statistical approach to central monitoring is based on a large number of statistical tests performed on all variables collected in the database, in order to identify centers that differ from the others. The tests generate a high-dimensional matrix of p-values, which can be analyzed by statistical methods and bioinformatic tools to identify extreme centers. RESULTS: Results from actual trials are provided to illustrate typical findings that can be expected from a central statistical monitoring approach, which detects abnormal patterns that were not (or could not have been) detected by on-site monitoring. LIMITATIONS: Central statistical monitoring can only address problems present in the data. Important aspects of trial conduct such as a lack of informed consent documentation, for instance, require other approaches. The results provided here are empirical examples from a limited number of studies. CONCLUSION: Central statistical monitoring can both optimize on-site monitoring and improve data quality and as such provides a cost-effective way of meeting regulatory requirements for clinical trials.
Authors: Catherine Timmermans; Erik Doffagne; David Venet; Lieven Desmet; Catherine Legrand; Tomasz Burzykowski; Marc Buyse Journal: Gastric Cancer Date: 2015-08-23 Impact factor: 7.370
Authors: Jennifer S Gewandter; Robert H Dworkin; Dennis C Turk; Eric G Devine; David Hewitt; Mark P Jensen; Nathaniel P Katz; Amy A Kirkwood; Richard Malamut; John D Markman; Bernard Vrijens; Laurie Burke; James N Campbell; Daniel B Carr; Philip G Conaghan; Penney Cowan; Mittie K Doyle; Robert R Edwards; Scott R Evans; John T Farrar; Roy Freeman; Ian Gilron; Dean Juge; Robert D Kerns; Ernest A Kopecky; Michael P McDermott; Gwendolyn Niebler; Kushang V Patel; Richard Rauck; Andrew S C Rice; Michael Rowbotham; Nelson E Sessler; Lee S Simon; Neil Singla; Vladimir Skljarevski; Tina Tockarshewsky; Geertrui F Vanhove; Ajay D Wasan; James Witter Journal: J Pain Date: 2019-12-13 Impact factor: 5.820
Authors: Charity G Moore; Susan Spillane; Gertrude Simon; Barbara Maxwell; Frederic F Rahbari-Oskoui; William E Braun; Arlene B Chapman; Robert W Schrier; Vicente E Torres; Ronald D Perrone; Theodore I Steinman; Godela Brosnahan; Peter G Czarnecki; Peter C Harris; Dana C Miskulin; Michael F Flessner; K Ty Bae; Kaleab Z Abebe; Marie C Hogan Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2015-07-29 Impact factor: 2.226