Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Clin Trials ; 8(3): 342-9, 2011 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-21730082

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: There is a little empirical evidence to determine which, if any, monitoring practices best achieve the goals of trial monitoring set forth in ICH E6 under the variable circumstances of different clinical trial settings. PURPOSE: The purpose of this project was to describe current methods of monitoring clinical trials and to explore the rationale for the use of those methods. METHODS: An electronic survey of known monitoring practices was developed and sent to over 200 organizations involved in conducting clinical research. The survey collected information on institutional demographics, methods of overall study oversight, use of risk-based monitoring and factors that influence assessments of risk, and details on quality assurance and monitoring practices. RESULTS: Seventy-nine organizations completed the survey; our analysis included the 65 organizations that indicated they perform clinical trials. Data from the survey indicate that a wide variety of monitoring practices are currently being employed. Eighty-three percent of respondents use centrally available data to evaluate site performance, but only 12% of respondents always or frequently used centralized monitoring to replace on-site visits. Eighty-seven percent of respondents indicated that they always performed on-site visits. This varied by type of organization, with 31% of academic coordinating centers/cooperative groups/government organizations always performing on-site monitoring visits versus 84% of other organizations. The rationale for using a specific monitoring approach does not appear to be based on empirical evidence. Fifty-four percent of respondents stated that 'usual practice' determined the frequency with which they conducted on-site monitoring visits. LIMITATIONS: The overall response rate to our survey was only 30%; thus, we may not have captured the full variance of current monitoring practices, and our responding sample may not be representative. CONCLUSION: These findings underscore the necessity of research to provide an evidence base for monitoring practice.


Subject(s)
Biomedical Research/standards , Clinical Trials as Topic/standards , Quality Assurance, Health Care/methods , Data Collection/methods , Humans
2.
Clin Infect Dis ; 51 Suppl 1: S111-6, 2010 Aug 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-20597658

ABSTRACT

There is an increasing focus on having quality systems in place during the planning stages of clinical trials. Such systems require the development and implementation of standards for each step. Although this is not imposing something totally new on clinical research, a systematic approach will produce a more reliable and useful end product--high-quality data obtained without compromising the protection of human subjects' rights and welfare. A suggested quality system with standards for each step is addressed in this article.


Subject(s)
Biomedical Research/standards , Clinical Trials as Topic , Quality Assurance, Health Care/methods , Quality Assurance, Health Care/standards , Research Design/standards , Humans
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...