metricas
covid
Buscar en
Cirugía Española (English Edition)
Toda la web
Inicio Cirugía Española (English Edition) Protocolization of multicenter clinical studies in the digital era. Is useful da...
Información de la revista
Vol. 101. Núm. 11.
Páginas 755-764 (noviembre 2023)
Visitas
25
Vol. 101. Núm. 11.
Páginas 755-764 (noviembre 2023)
Original article
Acceso a texto completo
Protocolization of multicenter clinical studies in the digital era. Is useful data centralization by a data-manager?
Protocolización de estudios clinicos multicentricos en la era digital. ¿Tiene utilidad la centralización de datos por un data-manager?
Visitas
25
Antonio Ríosa,b,
Autor para correspondencia
arzrios@um.es

Corresponding author.
, José Antonio Puñal-Rodríguezc, Pablo Morenod, Enrique Mercader-Cidonchae, Eduardo Ferrero-Herrerof, Manuel Duráng,h, Guadalupe Ruiz-Merinoi, José Ruiz-Pardoj, José Manuel Rodrígueza,b, Pedro Ramón Gutiérrezk,l
a Unidad de Cirugía Endocrina, Servicio de Cirugía General y de Aparato Digestivo, Instituto Murciano de Investigación Bio-Sanitaria (IMIB-Arrixaca), Hospital Clínico Universitario Virgen de la Arrixaca, Servicio Murciano de Salud, Murcia, Spain
b Departamento de Cirugía, Pediatría y Obstetricia, y Ginecología, Universidad de Murcia, Murcia, Spain
c Servicio de Cirugía General y Aparato Digestivo, Complejo Universitario de Santiago de Compostela, Spain
d Cirugía Endocrina, Hospital Universitario de Bellvitge, L’Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain
e Sección de Cirugía Endocrino-Metabólica, Hospital Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Instituto de Investigación Biosanitaria Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain
f Servicio de Cirugía General, Aparato Digestivo y Trasplante de Órganos Abdominales, Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Madrid, Spain
g Servicio de Cirugía General y del Aparato Digestivo, Hospital Universitario Rey Juan Carlos, Móstoles, Madrid, Spain
h Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Alcorcón, Madrid, Spain
i FFIS, Fundación para la Formación e Investigación Sanitarias de la Región de Murcia, Murcia, Spain
j Servicio de Cirugía General y del Aparato Digestivo, Hospital Torrecardenas, Almería, Spain
k Servicio de Urología, Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de Canarias (CHUC), Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain
l Departamento de Cirugía, Universidad de La Laguna (ULL), San Cristóbal de La Laguna, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain
Ver más
Este artículo ha recibido
Información del artículo
Resumen
Texto completo
Bibliografía
Descargar PDF
Estadísticas
Tablas (7)
Table 1. Percentage of disagreement between the initial assessment conducted at the hospital of origin and the final assessment centralized by a data manager.
Table 2. Agreement between the initial assessment made at the hospital of origin and the final assessment centralized by a data manager on the assessment of the T component (size) of the TNM system.
Table 3. Agreement between the initial assessment at the study center of origin and the centralized final assessment by a data manager regarding the N component (lymph node involvement) of the TNM system.
Table 4. Agreement between the initial assessment at the study center of origin and the centralized final assessment by a data manager regarding the M component M (systemic involvement) of the TNM system.
Table 5. Agreement between the initial assessment at the study center of origin and the centralized final assessment by a data manager regarding staging according to the TNM system.
Table 6. Agreement between the initial assessment at the study center of origin and the centralized final assessment by a data manager regarding the ATA risk of recurrence.
Table 7. Agreement between the initial assessment at the study center of origin and the centralized final assessment by a data manager regarding the TI-RADS ultrasound score.
Mostrar másMostrar menos
Figuras (1)
Abstract
Introduction

In multicenter studies, the protocolization of data is a critical phase that can generate biases.The objective is to analyze the concordance and reliability of the data obtained in a clinical multicenter study between the protocolization in the center of origin and the centralized protocolization of the data by a data -manager.

Methods

National multicenter clinical study about an infrequent carcinoma. A double protocolization of the data is carried out: (a) center of origin; and (b) centralized by a data manager: The concordance between the data is analyzed for the global data and for the two groups of the project: (a) study group (Familiar carcinoma, 30 researchers protocolize); (b) control group (Sporadic carcinoma, 4 people protocolize). Interobserver variability is evaluated using Cohen's kappa coefficient.

Results

The study includes a total of 689 patients with carcinoma, 252 in the study group and 437 in the control group. Regarding the concordance analysis of the tumor stage, 2.5% of disagreements were observed and the concordance between people who protocolize was near perfect (Kappa = 0.931). Regarding the evaluation of the recurrence risk, disagreements occurred in 7% of the cases and the concordance was near perfect (Kappa = 0.819). Regarding the sonography evaluation (TIRADS), the disagreements were 6.9% and the concordance was near perfect (Kappa = 0.922). Also, 4.6% of transcription errors were detected.

Conclusions

In multicenter clinical studies, the centralized data protocolization o by a data-manager seems to present similar results to the direct protocolization in the database in the center of origin.

Keywords:
Multicenter clinical study
Infrequent carcinoma
Data-manager
Protocolization
Concordance
Database
Resumen
Introducción

En los estudios multicéntricos la protocolización de los datos es una fase crítica que puede generar sesgos, sobre todo en estudios clínicos con presupuesto limitado. El objetivo es analizar la concordancia y cofiabilidad de los datos obtenidos en un estudio multicéntrico clínico entre la protocolización el centro de origen y la protocolización centralizada mediante un data-manager.

Método

Estudio clínico multicéntrico de prevalencia nacional sobre un carcinoma familiar infrecuente, realizándose una doble protocolización de los datos: (a) en el centro de origen; y, (b) centralizada con un data-manager: La concordancia se analiza para el global de los datos y para los dos subgrupos del proyecto: (a) grupo a estudio (Carcinoma familiar. Protocolizan 30 investigadores); y (b) grupo control (Carcinoma esporádico. Protocolizan 4). Las diferencias interobservador se evalúan mediante el Indice de Kappa de Cohen.

Resultados

Se incluyen 689 pacientes, 252 del grupo a estudio y 437 del grupo control. Respecto al análisis de concordancia del estadio tumoral se han objetivado un 2,5% de discordancias, siendo alta la concordancia entre protocolizadores (Kappa = 0,931). Respecto a la valoración del riesgo de recidiva las discordancias fueron del 7% de los casos, siendo alta la concordancia (Kappa = 0,819). Respecto a la clasificación ecográfica TIRADS las discordancias son del 6,9% y la concordancia es alta (Kappa = 0,922). Se han detectado un 4,6% de errores de transcripción.

Conclusiones

En los estudios multicéntricos clínicos la protocolización centralizada de los datos por un data-manager parece presentar resultados similares a la protocolización directa en la base de datos en el centro de origen.

Palabras clave:
Estudio multicéntrico clínico
Carcinoma infrecuente
Data-manager
Protocolización
Concordancia
Base de datos
Texto completo
Introduction

In rare pathologies, multicenter clinical studies are being promoted to achieve sufficiently large series over a relatively short period of time that would make it possible to draw representative conclusions.1,2 However, these studies also have drawbacks, particularly since patients are managed at different hospitals and with protocols that are not always the same, which generates a heterogeneity that may affect the results. Furthermore, remote work conducted by different researchers can lead to different biases.3

One step where biases can occur is data management.3 Currently, the trend is to generate an online cloud database that allows all study centers to manage data simultaneously. However, several researchers are involved in the data entry process, and this may lead to increased heterogeneity when compiling the database. In contrast, centralized data entry, generally by a data manager, entails greater expense and has not been shown to be beneficial.3

In most clinical trials, especially drug trials, electronic data collection is done directly, using a database and data capture systems to provide greater data integrity and shorten the study time. However, these systems are not easy to implement4 since they require prior installation by the research center, user training and patient participation — all of which come at a cost. Therefore, these systems are not very cost-effective for multicenter clinical projects,1,4 as their cost and the infrastructure required are not affordable. Furthermore, the collection of electronic data through a capture system is not free of risks, and its advantages can be lost when not used properly.5

What has become widespread in multicenter clinical projects (most without specific funding) is the use of online cloud databases for data processing. However, whatever potential biases or errors this online data collection system may entail has not been tested against a system of data entry by a data manager,6,7 especially when you consider that a reliable data storage system does not guarantee the reliability of data entry. Errors in data transcription have been reported, and fields near the end of the data entry page are associated with a higher number of errors. However, even in these instances, there are studies that indicate that control by a data manager can be considered an avoidable cost, while some authors suggest using an electronic control to monitor the reliability of data entry.6 Cost studies on the electronic data collection process in clinical trials have shown a reduction in collection costs of more than 50%, with savings ranging from 49 %–62 %, depending on the project.8

The aim of this study is to conduct a multicenter clinical study to analyze the agreement between the completion of the data collection protocol at the hospital of origin versus centralized data entry by a data manager in order to assess the reliability of the data.

MethodsStudy design

We have conducted a nation-wide multicenter study in Spain, which has been endorsed by the Spanish Association of Surgeons (Asociación Española de Cirujanos, or AEC). This study was the first main objective of our project. The study included patients with familial cancer of low incidence among the population.

We designed a specific data collection protocol for this pathology to collect socio-personal, clinical, therapeutic and follow-up variables. This protocol included an attached report specifying the data to be collected for each of the variables. In addition, contact information was provided to resolve any questions.

Data collection

The data were collected at the center of origin by each of the researchers collaborating with the project, who complied with the project protocol. Said protocol may have been on paper or digitalized, but the data did not flow directly into the project database.

A double protocol was carried out.

  • 1)

    Protocol 1–Data entry at the center of origin: Data are registered as they are obtained, following the protocol at the center of origin.

  • 2)

    Protocol 2–Centralized data entry by a data manager: Data are registered in a centralized manner, by a single data manager, who is able to resolve any concerns about the analyzed variables with the study center of origin.

The agreement between the protocol conducted with the data from the center of origin and the centralized protocol using a data manager has been analyzed in 3 different groups:

  • 1)

    Group 1 - Overall study. Agreement was analyzed for the total sample under study.

  • 2)

    Group 2–Familial cancer group. Agreement in the familial cancer group was analyzed. In this group, 30 researchers participated in the collection of data at the study centers of origin, which were the different hospital units participating in the project.

  • 3)

    Group 3–Sporadic carcinoma control group. Agreement was analyzed in the control group of patients with sporadic carcinoma. In this group, 4 researchers participated in the data entry at the center of origin, as these data came from only 4 hospital units.

Variables analyzed

Most socio-personal, clinical and therapeutic variables were excluded from the agreement analysis, where the presence of discordance is exceptional, except for transcription error. Three groups of variables were analyzed:

  • 1)

    Prognostic classification according to the TNM system of the American Joint Committee on Cancer. Within this system, the following are analyzed:

  • 2)

    Size (T)

  • 3)

    Node involvement (N)

  • 4)

    Systemic involvement (M)

  • 5)

    TNM stage

  • 6)

    Assessment of the risk of recurrence according to the ATA (American Thyroid Association), which proposes 3 risk groups:

  • 7)

    Low risk

  • 8)

    Moderate risk

  • 9)

    High risk

  • 10)

    Ultrasound assessment and TI-RADS (Thyroid Imaging Reporting and Data System), according to the Korean TI-RADS classification.9 There are seven risk groups:

  • 11)

    TI-RADS 1

  • 12)

    TI-RADS 2

  • 13)

    TI-RADS 3

  • 14)

    TI-RADS 4a

  • 15)

    TI-RADS 4b

  • 16)

    TI-RADS 4c

  • 17)

    TI-RADS 5

Lastly, transcription errors detected during the data entry protocol process were assessed.

Statistical analysis

The statistical analysis was performed with a software package (SPSS, version 19.0 for Windows, SPSS, Chicago, Illinois). Interobserver differences were evaluated using Cohen's Kappa Index. The agreement coefficient has a value that ranges between 0 and 1, and its interpretation corresponds with the following ranges:

  • 0 No agreement.

  • -

    0.01–0.19 Very low agreement.

  • -

    0.20 – 0.39 Low agreement.

  • -

    0.40 – 0.59 Moderate agreement.

  • -

    0.60 – 0.79 Good agreement.

  • -

    0.80 – 0.99 High agreement.

  • Perfect agreement.

P-values <.05 were considered statistically significant. There was agreement among the protocol data processers only if the correlation coefficient was greater than 0.00, with or without statistical significance.

For the comparison of groups 2 and 3, the Student’s t test was applied. Fisher’s exact test was applied when the contingency tables had cells with an expected frequency <5.

ResultsGeneral project characteristics

The study included a total of 689 patients with cancer, divided between the familial cancer study group (n = 252) and the sporadic cancer control group (n = 437).

Agreement analysis regarding the prognostic classification of the TNM system1) Assessment of the T component of the TNM system

The data management protocol for the T component of the TNM system presented a disagreement rate of 4.2% (n = 29). In the familial carcinoma group 2, with 30 data entry researchers, the disagreement rate reached 6% (n = 15). Meanwhile, in the sporadic carcinoma control group 3, with 4 protocol data entry researchers, discrepancies reached 3.2% (n = 14) (Table 1). These differences were not statistically significant (P = 0.125).

Table 1.

Percentage of disagreement between the initial assessment conducted at the hospital of origin and the final assessment centralized by a data manager.

Variables  Agreement  Disagreement  Percentage 
Group 1 – Global series
660  29  4.2% 
684  0.7% 
689  0% 
Stage  672  17  2.5% 
ATA Risk Assessment  641  48  7% 
TI-RADS  549  41  6.9% 
Transcription errors  657  32  4.6% 
Group 2 – Familial cancer
237  15  6% 
247  2% 
252  0% 
Stage  242  10  4% 
ATA Risk Assessment  234  18  7.1% 
TI-RADS  201  14  6.5% 
Transcription errors  240  12  4.8% 
Group 3 – Control group
423  14  3.2% 
437  0% 
437  0% 
Stage  430  1.6% 
ATA Risk Assessment  407  30  6.9% 
TI-RADS  348  27  7.2% 
Transcription errors  417  20  4.6% 

Both from a global level (Kappa = 0.939) as well as in the familial cancer group 2 (Kappa = 0.920) and in control group 3 (Kappa = 0.950), the agreement among the data entry researchers was high (Table 2).

Table 2.

Agreement between the initial assessment made at the hospital of origin and the final assessment centralized by a data manager on the assessment of the T component (size) of the TNM system.

Initial assessment at the Center of OriginCentralized assessment by a Data Manager
T1a  T1b  T2  T3  T4  Total 
Group 1 – Overall seriesKappa coefficient for inter-rater reliability 0,939P <.0001
T1a  306  314 
T1b  144  158 
T2  99  102 
T3  105  107 
T4 
Total  313  149  109  112  689 
Group 2 – Familial cancerKappa coefficient for inter-rater reliability 0,920P <.0001
T1a  74  80 
T1b  65  70 
T2  48  50 
T3  48  50 
T4 
Total  78  70  51  51  252 
Group 3 – Control groupKappa coefficient for inter-rater reliability 0,950P <.0001
T1a  232  234 
T1b  79  88 
T2  51  52 
T3  57  57 
T4 
Total  235  79  58  61  437 
2) Assessment of the N component of the TNM system

Data entries for the N component (lymph node involvement) of the TNM system presented a disagreement rate of 0.7% (n = 5), all of which were from the familial cancer group 2 (2%; n = 5) (P = .003) (Table 1).

Both globally (Kappa = 0.979) as well as in the familial cancer group 2 (Kappa = 0.949), agreement among the protocol data entry operators was high, and agreement was perfect in control group 3 (Kappa = 1.000) (Table 3).

Table 3.

Agreement between the initial assessment at the study center of origin and the centralized final assessment by a data manager regarding the N component (lymph node involvement) of the TNM system.

Initial assessment at the Center of OriginAssessment by a Data Manager
N0  N1a  N1b  Total 
Group 1 – Overall seriesKappa coefficient for inter-rater reliability 0,979P <.0001
N0  541  541 
N1a  95  100 
N1b  48  48 
Total  546  95  48  689 
Group 2 – Familial cancerKappa coefficient for inter-rater reliability 0,949P <.0001
N0  189  189 
N1a  39  44 
N1b  19  19 
Total  194  39  19  252 
Group 3 – Control groupKappa coefficient for inter-rater reliability 1,000P <.0001
N0  352  352 
N1a  56  56 
N1b  29  29 
Total  352  56  29  437 
3) Assessment of the M component of the TNM system

Data entries for the M component (systemic involvement) of the TNM system presented perfect agreement among the 3 groups (Tables 1 and 4).

Table 4.

Agreement between the initial assessment at the study center of origin and the centralized final assessment by a data manager regarding the M component M (systemic involvement) of the TNM system.

Initial assessment at the Center of OriginAssessment by a Data Manager
M0  M1  Total 
Group 1 – Overall seriesKappa coefficient for inter-rater reliability 1,000P <.0001
M0  687  687 
M1 
Total  687  689 
Group 2 – Familial cancerKappa coefficient for inter-rater reliability 1,000P <.0001
M0  251  251 
M1 
Total  251  252 
Group 3 – Control groupKappa coefficient for inter-rater reliability 1,000P <.0001
M0  436  436 
M1 
Total  436  437 
4) Assessment of the TNM stage

Data entries for the TNM stage presented a disagreement rate of 2.5% (n = 17). This percentage was greater in the familial cancer group 2 (4%; n = 10) than in the sporadic carcinoma control group 3 (1.6%; n = 7), although said differences were not significant (P = .094) (Table 1).

Both globally (Kappa = 0.931) as well as in the familial cancer group 2 (Kappa = 0.904) and in control group 3 (Kappa = 0.950), agreement among the data entry managers was high (Table 5).

Table 5.

Agreement between the initial assessment at the study center of origin and the centralized final assessment by a data manager regarding staging according to the TNM system.

Initial assessment at the Center of OriginAssessment by a Data Manager
II  III  IV  Total 
Group 1 – Overall seriesKappa coefficient for inter-rater reliability 0,931P <.0001
540  547 
II  44  46 
III  59  67 
IV  29  29 
Total  544  48  63  34  689 
Group 2 – Familial cancerKappa coefficient for inter-rater reliability 0,904P <.0001
186  189 
II  24  25 
III  24  30 
IV 
Total  189  26  25  12  252 
Group 3 – Control groupKappa coefficient for inter-rater reliability 0,950P <.0001
354  358 
II  20  21 
III  35  37 
IV  21  21 
Total  355  22  38  22  437 
Agreement analysis for the ATA risk of recurrence staging system

Data entries for the ATA risk of recurrence classification presented a disagreement rate of 7% (n = 48). In the familial cancer group 2, the discrepancies represented 7.1% (n = 18), while in the sporadic carcinoma control group 3, the discrepancies represented 6.9% (n = 30) of the cases (Table 1). These differences were not significant (P = .890).

Both at a global level (Kappa = 0.819) as well as in the familial carcinoma group 2 (Kappa = 0.829) and in control group 3 (Kappa = 0.813), agreement among the data entry operators was high (Table 6).

Table 6.

Agreement between the initial assessment at the study center of origin and the centralized final assessment by a data manager regarding the ATA risk of recurrence.

Initial assessment at the Center of OriginAssessment by a Data Manager
Low risk  Moderate risk  High risk  Total 
Group 1 – Overall seriesKappa coefficient for inter-rater reliability 0,819P <.0001
Low risk  498  40  539 
Moderate risk  127  134 
High risk  16  16 
Total  499  167  23  689 
Group 2 – Familial cancerKappa coefficient for inter-rater reliability 0,829P <.0001
Low risk  177  13  190 
Moderate risk  46  51 
High risk  11  11 
Total  178  59  15  252 
Group 3 – Control groupKappa coefficient for inter-rater reliability 0,813P <.0001
Low risk  321  27  349 
Intermediate risk  81  83 
High risk 
Total  321  108  437 
Agreement analysis for the TI-RADS ultrasound classification

The assessment of the TI-RADS ultrasound classification presented a disagreement rate of 6.9% (n = 41). In the familial cancer group 2, the discrepancies were 6.5% (n = 14), while in the sporadic cancer control group 3, the discrepancies represented 7.2% (n = 27) of the cases (Table 1). These differences were not significant (P = .739).

Both overall (Kappa = 0.922) as well as in the familial cancer group 2 (Kappa = 0.921) and in control group 3 (Kappa = 0.922), agreement among the data processors was high (Table 7).

Table 7.

Agreement between the initial assessment at the study center of origin and the centralized final assessment by a data manager regarding the TI-RADS ultrasound score.

Initial assessment at the Center of OriginAssessment by a Data Manager
TI-RADS 1  TI-RADS 2  TI-RADS 3  TI-RADS 4a  TI-RADS 4b  TI-RADS 4c  TI-RADS 5  Total 
Group 1 – Overall seriesKappa coefficient for inter-rater reliability 0,922P <.0001
TI-RADS 1 
TI-RADS 2  34  37 
TI-RADS 3  27  29 
TI-RADS 4a  104  106 
TI-RADS 4b  155  19  175 
TI-RADS 4c  211  224 
TI-RADS 5  18  18 
Total  37  31  105  165  230  22  590 
Missing Data                99 
Group 2 – Familial cancerKappa coefficient for inter-rater reliability 0,921P <.0001
TI-RADS 1 
TI-RADS 2  12  12 
TI-RADS 3 
TI-RADS 4a  43  43 
TI-RADS 4b  45  56 
TI-RADS 4c  91  95 
TI-RADS 5 
Total  12  44  48  100  10  215 
Missing Data                37 
Group 3 – Control groupKappa coefficient for inter-rater reliability 0,922P <.0001
TI-RADS 1 
TI-RADS 2  22  25 
TI-RADS 3  26  28 
TI-RADS 4a  61  63 
TI-RADS 4b  110  10  120 
TI-RADS 4c  120  129 
TI-RADS 5 
Total  25  30  61  117  130  12  375 
Missing Data                62 
Transcription errors

Transcription errors have been detected in 4.6% (n = 32) of cases, with similar percentages found in group 2 (4.8%; n = 12) and group 3 (4.6%; n = 20) (P = .939) (Table 1).

Discussion

In clinical trials and multicenter studies, data collection notebooks or registers are basic tools used by researchers to record the clinical and non-clinical data of patients included in these studies. These data must then be registered in an electronic database for their analysis.10,11 The current trend is to record the data directly in the study database in order to facilitate the process.8 In addition, electronic data collection forms often contain verifications to reduce the entry of erroneous data, while offering administrators continuous information about the data and the collection process.4,12 However, their cost can be prohibitive in many multicenter clinical studies. Nevertheless, more and more computer platforms are being developed, so costs are expected to go down in the future.

Regardless of the type of data management, it is important to ensure that information is entered into the database in a consistent and accurate manner,13–15 as even a small rate of error can have a big impact on the results of a study.16 Random or systematic errors that go unnoticed are sources of bias in the database. Furthermore, the availability of reliable electronic systems is not enough to guarantee the validity of population-based cross-sectional studies. In fact, the relevance of a study largely depends on 2 main factors: quality data collection from the medical records, and the reliability of the data transferred from the medical records to the electronic system. Any weakness in these 2 stages will invalidate the study.16–19 Thus, the importance of training clinical researchers must be emphasized, particularly when it comes to training in good clinical practices.20–22

For all these reasons, although multicenter studies offer the advantage of obtaining information on rare pathologies in a relatively short period of time, they are more heterogeneous studies and have a greater risk of biases.1,3,22–24 Therefore, a balance must be sought between minimizing the potential biases of a study while not increasing the costs, which would make them unviable. In this context, the concept of centralized data entry by a data manager implies a more homogeneous protocol. However, it also entails a greater cost for the research project, which is sometimes unaffordable,1,3,22–24 and usually implies a longer data entry period versus when the protocol is followed independently by the different research groups.

Our multicenter project, which was conducted within the context of a national scientific society in Spain, shows how an adequate study design, detailed protocol, and complete explanation of the implications of each variable resulted in an acceptably high rate of agreement. Nevertheless, even though agreement was high (and in some cases perfect) for almost all the variables analyzed, the detailed analysis of the data revealed a percentage of disagreement that reached 7% for certain variables. Furthermore, these discrepancies were accentuated when the number of data processors was higher. Thus, we observed more disagreement in the familial cancer group 2, where there were 30 researchers entering data, versus the sporadic carcinoma control group 3, with only 4 researchers entering data.

In addition, the discrepancies mainly correlated with variables whose determination involves some type of nuance. For instance, agreement rates were almost perfect for concrete variables like lymph node involvement (N) or the presence of metastasis (M), with non-agreement rates of 0.7% and 0%, respectively. For the “T” variable, however, which is not only determined by size but also by factors such as the impact on neighboring structures, the non-agreement rate was greater than 4%. This situation became more obvious for variables where the classification was even more complex. Thus, we observed a disagreement rate of 7% for the ATA recurrence risk assessment and 6.9% in the TI-RADS ultrasound classification.

Therefore, although the agreement between direct data entry at the hospital of origin and centralized data processing by a data manager is high, there is a percentage of disagreement for important prognostic variables that ranges from 2.5% for TNM tumor stage to 7% for ATA the risk assessment. This implies a percentage of error or bias only in the process of data entry in multicenter studies. Thus, for these variables and although agreement is high, it is at the lower limit of said agreement — close to what is considered merely “good agreement”. To this, we must add the transcription error rate of 4.6%, as detected by the data manager.

Complying with data processing protocols is a slow and sometimes tedious process, and it is not always done by the main researcher at the hospital of origin, as the work is frequently delegated to others. All of this leads to possible errors in transcription. We should emphasize that the objective of this study is not to detect transcription errors, which suggests that this percentage may possibly be higher, since only evident data processing errors were detected. In order to detect all errors, the protocol variables would have to be reviewed in their entirety.

Hence, data collection must be well supervised to improve study quality. Although the use of a data manager makes no difference, the transcription error rate was nearly 5%. Therefore, it is necessary to create clear data entry protocols that are easy to complete, and we recommend that an experienced member of the data collection team review the main variables of the study. Otherwise, in the design phase of the study, the database should compile fewer variables but of greater quality and interest for the analysis.

We agree with other authors in that, if the staff members who log the data are well trained and supervised, this is not the weakest link in the data management chain,6,25,26 even though we have shown that this process does entail a margin of error.

One factor that our project has not corroborated (possibly because it is a short protocol) is that the position of the data entry field in the protocol may play an important role in the proportion of errors. The last few positions are associated with more errors than the initial fields, especially when the fields are numerical. This has been attributed to data manager fatigue when questionnaires have too many fields to complete.6 These results therefore results suggest that, to create more effective questionnaires, the most important information should be collected in the first few fields, the number of fields should be reduced, and “combo boxes” or text boxes should be used instead of fields with direct numerical insertion (especially in the last part of the questionnaire).

A limitation of this study is that it was based on a single data manager, making it difficult to generalize our conclusions. However, we should reiterate that the decision to use a single data manager was made to improve the reliability of data entry by reducing bias among data entry operators. To this point, it would be interesting to be able to compare our outcomes with other multicenter studies in other contexts for external validation of the results. Lastly, the quality of the data in multicenter studies with no data manager should be assessed, specifically regarding who collects the data (administrative staff, residents, etc) and under whose supervision, since these factors can influence the results, in which case the presence of a data manager could present differences.

Based on the data from our study, the existence of a data manager is not necessary given the high agreement between the data entry types, which represents savings in both time and costs.8 The drawbacks that online data processing may present can be resolved (as in our study) with standard databases that do not require direct costs or maintaining an online system, although it does not present the advantages offered by online products in terms of quality control. Nonetheless, they may be sufficient for multicenter projects like the one evaluated in our study. All these factors are important in multicenter studies of rare pathologies, where the contribution of cases is important, but at the same time funding is limited or even non-existent. In a Phase II Clinical Trial, data management costs can be almost 30% of the costs of Phase III clinical trials,8 and this added expense will subsequently impact the costs of marketed drugs. In multicenter clinical studies, these costs will determine the viability of the project itself.27

Lastly, it should be noted that, although there are no differences, and a data manager may not be necessary to log the data, it should be mentioned that data managers usually carry out other functions over the course of a project, such as coordinating patient testing, resolving problems that may arise in the participating study centers, serving as a liaison among researchers, etc. Therefore, if the budget of a project is able to cover the cost, hiring a data manager usually speeds up the completion of a project.

In conclusion, centralized data processing by a data manager in multicenter clinical studies seems to present similar results compared to direct data entry in the database at the hospital of origin.

Ethics approval

The study protocol was approved by institute's committee.

Ethics Committee Code: 2021-2-13-HCUVA.

This human study has been reviewed by the appropriate ethics committee and has therefore been performed in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in the 2000 Declaration of Helsinki as well as the Declaration of Istanbul 2008.

Funding

No specific funding sources have been used for this study.

Précis

In multicenter clinical studies, the existence of a data manager is not required and the protocolization can be performed directly in the database in the center of origin due to the near perfect concordance between the two protocolization systems.

Authorship: Contribution to study by the Authors

  • 1

    Conception and design: Ríos A.

  • 2

    Acquisition of a substantial portion of data: Rios A, Ferrero-Herrero E, Puñal-Rodríguez JA, Duran M, Mercader-Cidoncha E, Ruiz-Pardo J, Rodríguez JM.

  • 3

    Analysis and interpretation of data: Rios A, Gutiérrez PR.

  • 4

    Drafting of the manuscript: Rios A.

  • 5

    Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Rios A, Gutiérrez PR, Mercader-Cidoncha E.

  • 6

    Statistical expertise: Rios A.

  • 7

    Obtaining funding for this project or study: Ríos A.

  • 8

    Supervision: Rios A, Ferrero-Herrero E, Puñal-Rodríguez JA, Gutiérrez PR, Durán M. Mercader-Cidoncha E, Ruiz-Pardo J, Rodríguez JM.

  • 9

    Final approval of the version to be published: Rios A, Ferrero-Herrero E, Puñal-Rodríguez JA, Gutiérrez PR, Mercader-Cidoncha E, Ruiz-Pardo J, Rodríguez JM.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgements

Thank the Spanish Association of Surgeons and the Endocrine Surgery Surgery Section for their support in carrying out this work. Thank the 24 Spanish Endocrine Surgery Units for having collaborated in the realization of this project and for having provided the data.

References
[1]
X. Serra-Aracil, M. Pascua-Sol, J. Badia-Closa, S. Navarro-Soto.
Cómo poner en marcha y desarrollar un estudio multicéntrico prospectivo, controlado y aleatorizado.
[2]
K. Hemminki, C. Eng, B. Chen.
Familial risks for nonmedullary thyroid cancer.
J Clin Endocrinol Metab, 90 (2005), pp. 5747-5753
[3]
C.J. Pannucci, E.G. Wilkins.
Identifying and avoiding bias in research.
Plast Reconstr Surg, 126 (2010), pp. 619-625
[4]
J.A. Welker.
Implementation of electronic data capture systems: barriers and solutions.
Contemp Clin Trials, 28 (2007), pp. 329-336
[5]
J.K. Schmier, D.W. Kane, M.T. Halpern.
Practical applications of usability theory to electronic data collection of clinical trials.
Contemp Clin Trials, 26 (2005), pp. 375-385
[6]
D. Mauri, V. Karampoiki, J. Mauri, K. Kamposioras, G. Alexiou, G. Ferentinos, Peponi C (SESy Europe Task Force), et al.
Double-blind control of the data manager doesn’t have any impact on data entry reliability and should be considered as an avoidable cost.
BMC Med Res Methodol, 8 (2008), pp. 66
[7]
K. Howells.
Living without a data management system.
IDrugs, 11 (2008), pp. 733-737
[8]
I. Pavlović, T. Kern, D. Miklavcic.
Comparison of paper-based and electronic data collection process in clinical trials: costs simulation study.
Contemp Clin Trials, 30 (2009), pp. 300-316
[9]
J.Y. Kwak, K.H. Han, J.H. Yoon, H.J. Moon, E.J. Son, S.H. Park, et al.
Thyroid imaging reporting and data system for US features of nodules: a step in establishing better stratification of cancer risk.
Radiology, 260 (2011), pp. 892-899
[10]
N. Lee, A. Millman, M. Osborne, J. Cox.
ABC of medical computing. Storing and managing data on a computer.
[11]
A. Millman, N. Lee, A. Brooke.
ABC of medical computing. Computers in general practice – I.
[12]
C.A. Brandt, S. Argraves, R. Money, G. Ananth, N.M. Trocky, P.M. Nadkarni.
Informatics tools to improve clinical research study implementation.
Contemp Clin Trials, 27 (2006), pp. 112-122
[13]
R.K. Los, A.M. van Ginneken, J. Roukema, H.A. Moll, J. Lei van der.
Why are structured data different? Relating differences in data representation to the rationale of OpenSDE.
Med Inform Internet Med, 30 (2005), pp. 267-276
[14]
S. de Lusignan.
The barriers to clinical coding in general practice: a literature review.
Med Inform Internet Med, 30 (2005), pp. 89-97
[15]
R.G. Marks.
Validating electronic source data in clinical trials.
Control Clin Trials, 25 (2004), pp. 437-446
[16]
J.P. Mullooly.
The effects of data entry error: an analysis of partial verification.
Comput Biomed Res, 23 (1990), pp. 259-267
[17]
S.H. Levitt, D.M. Aeppli, R.A. Potish, C.K. Lee, M.E. Nierengarten.
Influences on inferences: effect of errors in data on statistical evaluation.
[18]
S. Arndt, G. Tyrrell, R.F. Woolson, M. Flaum, N.C. Andreasen.
Effects of errors in a multicenter medical study: preventing misinterpreted data.
J Psychiatr Res, 28 (1994), pp. 447-459
[19]
I.K. Crombie, J.M. Irving.
An investigation of data entry methods with a personal computer.
Comput Biomed Res, 19 (1986), pp. 543-550
[20]
M. Saleh, G. Naik, P. Jester, C. Joiner, E. Westfall, D.W. Kimberlin, et al.
Clinical Investigator Training Program (CITP) - A practical and pragmatic approach to conveying clinical investigator competencies and training to busy clinicians.
Contemp Clin Trials Commun, 19 (2020),
[21]
T. Swezey, F.H. McGuire, P. Hurley, J. Panhuis, K. Goldstein, T. Chuck, et al.
More than a box to check: research sponsor and clinical investigator perspectives on making GCP training relevant.
Contemp Clin Trials Commun, 19 (2020),
[22]
J. Bechtel, T. Chuck, A. Forrest, C. Hildebrand, J. Panhuis, S.R. Pattee, et al.
Improving the quality conduct and efficiency of clinical trials with training: recommendations for preparedness and qualification of investigators and delegates.
Contemp Clin Trials, 89 (2020),
[23]
G.D. Huanga, J. Bull, K.J. McKee, E. Mahon, B. Harper, J.N. Roberts.
Clinical trials recruitment planning: a proposed framework from the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative.
Contemp Clin Trials, 66 (2018), pp. 74-79
[24]
K.C. Chung, J.W. Song.
A Guide on Organizing a Multicenter Clinical Trial: the WRIST study group.
Plast Reconstr Surg, 126 (2010), pp. 515-523
[25]
S. Day, P. Fayers, D. Harvey.
Double data entry: what value, what price?.
Control Clin Trials, 19 (1998), pp. 15-24
[26]
R.A. Reynolds-Haertle, R. McBride.
Single vs. double data entry in CAST.
Control Clin Trials, 13 (1992), pp. 487-494
[27]
A. Ríos, M.A. Rodríguez, J.A. Puñal, P. Moreno, E. Mercader, E. Ferrero, et al.
Biological behavior of familial papillary thyroid microcarcinoma: Spanish multicenter study.
Langenbecks Arch Sur, (2022),
Copyright © 2023. AEC
Descargar PDF
Opciones de artículo
es en pt

¿Es usted profesional sanitario apto para prescribir o dispensar medicamentos?

Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?

Você é um profissional de saúde habilitado a prescrever ou dispensar medicamentos

Quizás le interese:
10.1016/j.cireng.2022.06.043
No mostrar más