Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Case report form

A case report form (CRF) is a tool designed to record protocol-required information to be reported by the investigator to the sponsor on each trial subject/participant in a clinical study, serving as the primary tool for standardized data collection in clinical research. CRFs are essential for ensuring the accuracy, completeness, and integrity of patient data, which is critical for evaluating the safety and efficacy of investigational products, testing research hypotheses, and supporting regulatory submissions to authorities such as the FDA. Their design must be driven by the study protocol to capture relevant details like demographics, medical history, adverse events, concomitant medications, and efficacy endpoints, while minimizing redundancy and facilitating efficient data entry by site personnel. Poorly designed CRFs can lead to data errors, increased query rates, and delays in trial timelines, underscoring their role in overall study quality and compliance with Good Clinical Practice (GCP) guidelines established by the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH). Historically, CRFs originated as paper-based forms but have evolved with technology to include electronic case report forms (eCRFs), which offer advantages such as real-time data validation, reduced transcription errors, and easier integration with systems, particularly in large multicenter trials. Key design principles for CRFs emphasize user-friendliness, with clear instructions, logical flow, standardized formats (e.g., skip logic for conditional questions), and essential elements like headers for subject and footers for signatures and version control to maintain auditability. In practice, CRFs are completed by investigators or designated staff based on source documents, then reviewed and submitted to sponsors for database locking and analysis, forming the backbone of documentation under regulations like ICH E6(R3).

Definition and Purpose

Definition

A case report form (CRF) is a designed to record protocol-required information to be reported by the to the on each participant. Unlike source documents, which are original records such as charts, notes, or subject diaries containing raw source data, CRFs serve as standardized tools for systematically extracting, transcribing, and organizing that data into a format suitable for trial analysis. This distinction ensures that CRFs capture only the relevant protocol-specified details without constituting the primary records themselves. As a core data collection instrument in clinical trials, the CRF promotes consistency in recording information across diverse trial sites and participants, enabling reliable aggregation for statistical evaluation of and , as well as preparation of regulatory dossiers. By standardizing , CRFs minimize variability and support the integrity of the trial dataset submitted to authorities. CRFs are generally structured in a modular format to align with the trial timeline, incorporating dedicated sections for elements such as participant demographics, screening and eligibility assessments, details of interventions, and measurement of outcomes. This organization facilitates logical progression of data capture while adhering closely to the study protocol's requirements.

Purpose in Clinical Trials

The case report form (CRF) serves as the primary tool for systematically collecting, organizing, and standardizing data from trial participants in clinical studies, enabling researchers to address predefined research questions regarding the investigational product's safety and efficacy. As updated in ICH E6(R3) (adopted 2025), CRFs support risk-based quality management in data collection. By capturing protocol-required information in a structured format, CRFs minimize data duplication, reduce transcription errors from source documents, and facilitate efficient data cleaning and validation processes prior to analysis. This standardized approach ensures that all relevant observations, such as adverse events, laboratory results, and patient outcomes, are recorded consistently across sites, supporting the integrity of the trial dataset for subsequent statistical evaluation and regulatory scrutiny. CRFs are integral throughout all phases of a , from participant screening and enrollment to treatment administration, follow-up visits, and study closeout, thereby ensuring comprehensive capture of protocol-specified endpoints like primary measures and indicators. They bridge the gap between raw source data—such as medical records or electronic health systems—and the centralized trial database, allowing for or batched entry that aligns with the trial timeline and culminates in database locking for final analysis. This integration promotes a seamless , where data from diverse sources is transcribed or directly entered into the CRF, forming the foundational dataset used for generating summary tables, listings, and figures in clinical study reports. For stakeholders, CRFs provide critical benefits by aiding sponsors in robust and interpretation to inform product development decisions, while enabling investigators to maintain strict adherence through guided fields and built-in prompts. Regulators, in turn, rely on CRFs to verify conduct and data reliability during inspections, as the forms create an auditable trail that demonstrates compliance with standards. Overall, these functions enhance efficiency, data quality, and the credibility of results submitted for marketing authorization.

History and Evolution

Early Development

Case report forms (CRFs) emerged in the mid-20th century alongside the rise of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which established rigorous standards for evaluating medical interventions in the post-World War II era. This development was profoundly shaped by ethical guidelines for human experimentation, including the 1947 , which mandated voluntary and safeguards against harm, thereby necessitating structured and verifiable practices to uphold participant rights and trial integrity. Key milestones in CRF development unfolded during the 1960s and 1970s, paralleling the surge in pharmaceutical-sponsored clinical trials driven by regulatory reforms. The 1962 Kefauver-Harris Amendments to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act required proof of drug efficacy through at least two adequate and well-controlled studies, prompting the adoption of standardized forms to capture consistent, protocol-specific data for regulatory submissions. An early exemplar was the 1954 Salk polio vaccine field trial, involving over 600,000 children across 44 states, which utilized paper-based data collection methods to enable multi-site analysis and evaluation. The initial purpose of CRFs was to function as basic paper-based tools—often questionnaires or checklists—for recording essential data, ensuring uniformity across diverse investigators and sites to support reproducible outcomes in . This addressed the growing complexity of trials in the 1960s and 1970s, when pharmaceutical research expanded to test treatments for conditions, demanding reliable aggregation of patient-level information like adverse events and measures. Prior to electronic adoption, CRFs remained manual and hand-written, typically on multi-part no-carbon-required paper for on-site copying, with standardization largely confined to national regulations like those from the FDA, as international harmonization efforts had yet to materialize.

Transition to Electronic Formats

The adoption of electronic case report forms (eCRFs) in clinical trials accelerated during the 1990s, primarily due to the recognized inefficiencies of paper-based systems, including prolonged data entry times, high transcription error rates, and substantial logistical costs associated with physical handling and shipping of forms. A pivotal regulatory milestone came in 1997 with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) finalization of 21 CFR Part 11, which established standards for the trustworthiness and reliability of electronic records and signatures, thereby legitimizing digital alternatives to paper documentation in regulated environments. This framework addressed key barriers, fostering greater confidence among sponsors and investigators to implement electronic systems without compromising compliance. By the early 2000s, eCRFs had begun transitioning from niche applications to more routine use, with adoption rates reaching approximately 20% of trials by 2007, reflecting growing technological maturity and vendor support for (EDC) platforms. Standardization efforts further propelled this shift; for instance, the Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium (CDISC) released its Clinical Data Acquisition Standards Harmonization (CDASH) model in 2008 (version 1.0), with version 1.1 following in 2011, which provided guidelines for consistent across domains like demographics and adverse events, facilitating and reducing variability in eCRF design. The move to electronic formats was driven by tangible advantages, including a significant reduction in data errors compared to paper forms, along with expedited data access and the enablement of real-time monitoring for interim analyses and safety oversight. These benefits aligned with broader efficiency goals outlined in the FDA's 2005 Critical Path Initiative, which emphasized innovative tools to accelerate timelines amid rising trial complexities. By 2023, industry surveys indicated that nearly 80% of clinical trials employed eCRFs, underscoring a near-complete from analog to digital paradigms and positioning electronic systems as the global standard. As of 2025, adoption continues to approach universality.

Design Principles

Key Components

A case report form (CRF) is structured modularly to systematically capture protocol-specified from each participant, ensuring comprehensive and organized collection of essential information. Core modules typically include demographics, such as , sex, and race; eligibility criteria encompassing inclusion and exclusion assessments; ; physical examinations; treatment administration details; assessments; evaluations including adverse events and laboratory results; and concomitant medications. These modules are organized to reflect the trial's chronological and logical flow, with demographics often appearing first to establish baseline participant characteristics, followed by eligibility to confirm suitability, and subsequent sections for ongoing observations and interventions. For instance, physical examinations might record and general metrics, while safety modules detail adverse events using standardized coding and laboratory data for monitoring physiological changes. Efficacy modules capture outcome measures tailored to the study's objectives, such as tumor response in trials. Structural features enhance usability and , including sequential page numbering for easy , skip logic instructions to guide users through conditional questions (e.g., prompting adverse event details only if an event occurs), validation checks like range limits to flag implausible entries (e.g., age outside 0-120 years), and dedicated query fields to document and resolve discrepancies. Headers typically contain identifiers such as protocol ID, site code, subject ID, and visit date, while footers include version number, page totals, and spaces for signature and date. These elements promote consistency and reduce errors during completion. Customization aligns the CRF with specific protocol endpoints, incorporating disease-specific scales like the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) for oncology efficacy assessments or patient-reported outcomes such as quality-of-life questionnaires (e.g., ). This tailoring ensures relevance without introducing unnecessary fields, balancing comprehensiveness with efficiency. Data types within modules vary to optimize accuracy and analysis, featuring a mix of open-ended fields for detailed narratives, coded options for standardization (e.g., terminology for adverse events to enable consistent reporting across studies), and derived fields calculated from raw inputs (e.g., from height and weight). This approach ensures data completeness while minimizing redundancy, such as avoiding duplicate entry of the same vital sign across modules.

Standardization and Guidelines

Standardization of case report forms (CRFs) in clinical trials is primarily guided by the Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium (CDISC) Clinical Data Acquisition Standards Harmonization (CDASH) framework, which provides a standardized approach to across studies and sponsors by defining consistent formats and structures for common domains such as demographics, adverse events, and . CDASH facilitates harmonized CRF development by offering tables and guides that serve as building blocks for CRF design and underlying databases, ensuring interoperability and reducing variability in data acquisition. Additionally, the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH) E3 guideline on the structure and content of clinical study reports specifies the inclusion of sample CRFs in appendices, focusing on unique pages that document critical events like deaths, serious adverse events, and withdrawals due to adverse events to support regulatory review and data verification. Key guideline principles emphasize consistency in through the use of controlled vocabularies, such as CDISC-defined codelists and valid values for data items, which standardize entries like or terms to enhance and . CRFs should align closely with objectives while adhering to minimal principles, capturing only essential information needed to address study hypotheses and avoiding redundant or elaborate fields that could increase site burden or error rates. In practice, sponsors and contract research organizations (CROs) implement these standards by utilizing standardized CRF templates and libraries, often maintained by organizations like the Society for Clinical Data Management, to streamline and ensure compliance. Versioning mechanisms, such as template identifiers and date stamps, are employed to track changes and maintain audit trails throughout the trial lifecycle. User-friendly layouts are prioritized in CRF design, incorporating clear instructions, logical flow, and intuitive interfaces to minimize errors and promote legible, valid recordings. Global adoption of these standards has been advanced by regulatory mandates, notably the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requirement since December 17, 2016, for CDISC-compliant data submissions in electronic formats, which has improved data reuse, integration, and efficiency in regulatory reviews. While the () encourages standardization for data to support benefit-risk assessments, full mandates remain aligned with ICH efforts, fostering broader across international submissions.

Types of Case Report Forms

Paper-Based CRFs

Paper-based case report forms (CRFs) consist of printed documents designed according to the study protocol and distributed physically to sites for manual completion by investigators. These forms capture patient data directly from source documents, such as medical records, through handwritten entries, checkboxes, or structured fields. Once completed, the forms are returned to a central location where data is transcribed into electronic databases, a that can involve double-entry to minimize inaccuracies. In many implementations, paper CRFs incorporate scannable elements like checkboxes or marked fields that enable (OMR) technology for semi-automated digitization, reducing some manual transcription efforts while still relying on physical handling. A primary advantage of paper-based CRFs is their low technological requirements, eliminating the need for user , software validation, or reliable , which makes them accessible for small-scale studies or sites with limited . This simplicity proves particularly beneficial in remote or low-resource clinical settings, where electronic systems may be impractical due to power outages, connectivity issues, or budget constraints. Furthermore, the tangible format allows for straightforward on-site review and annotation by multiple team members, facilitating immediate corrections during in complex scenarios. Despite these benefits, paper-based CRFs are susceptible to limitations inherent in manual processes, including illegible that complicates and increases the of misrecording. Transcription from to formats is particularly error-prone, with studies reporting error rates ranging from 0.29% for single-entry methods to as high as 6.57% for medical record abstraction, and up to 27% in some scenarios prior to widespread . These issues contribute to significant delays in data availability, as forms must be shipped, reviewed, and entered sequentially, often extending timelines by weeks or months compared to real-time electronic alternatives. As of 2024, paper-based CRFs continue to play a role in more than 30% of clinical trials and registries, frequently integrated into hybrid models that combine manual forms with electronic systems for specific modules or as contingency backups in case of technical failures. This persistence reflects their reliability in diverse global contexts, though adoption is gradually declining with advancing digital infrastructure.

Electronic CRFs (eCRFs)

Electronic case report forms (eCRFs) are digital versions of traditional CRFs implemented through (EDC) systems, enabling the structured collection of via software platforms. These platforms, such as Medidata Rave EDC, facilitate real-time entry directly into the system, reducing the need for manual transcription. Key features include automated validation rules that check for completeness and consistency upon entry, built-in edit checks to flag discrepancies instantly, and comprehensive audit trails that log all changes for and . Additionally, eCRFs support , allowing investigators and site staff to input from tablets or smartphones during visits, enhancing flexibility in data capture. The advantages of eCRFs stem from their , which supports immediate query resolution by notifying users of issues in , thereby accelerating cleaning and minimizing delays in trial timelines. Error rates in eCRF are significantly lower than in paper-based systems, often below 1% due to automated checks that prevent invalid entries at the source. Furthermore, eCRFs integrate seamlessly with external sources, such as electronic health records (EHRs) and wearable devices, enabling automated import and streamlined workflows that reduce duplication and improve overall quality. Implementation of eCRFs typically involves selecting between cloud-based deployments, which offer and remote accessibility without extensive hardware requirements, and on-premise solutions that provide greater control over for organizations with stringent needs. training is essential to ensure proficiency in navigating the and leveraging features like query , often provided through vendor-led programs. These systems enable remote by sponsors, allowing real-time oversight of progress, and support adaptive designs by facilitating mid-study modifications to protocols. Since the , eCRFs have become the dominant format in clinical trials, with adoption rates exceeding 90% in large-scale studies by the mid-2020s, driven by regulatory endorsements and proven efficiencies. By 2025, advancements in (AI) have introduced enhancements such as auto-population of eCRF fields from protocol documents or external datasets, further automating form generation and reducing manual setup time.

Regulatory Requirements

ICH-GCP Compliance

The International Council for Harmonisation (ICH) (GCP) guideline, specifically E6(R3), establishes key principles for case report forms (CRFs) to ensure the ethical and scientific quality of clinical trials. CRFs are defined as tools designed to record all protocol-required for each trial participant reported to the . Under these principles, investigators must ensure that CRF data is accurate, complete, legible, and timely, reflecting source documents without discrepancies unless explained. Any changes to CRF entries require , explanation if necessary, and preservation of an that does not obscure original entries. Investigators or authorized designees must review and endorse the CRFs at agreed milestones to attest to the truthfulness and accuracy of the recorded data. Specific requirements in ICH E6(R3) emphasize protections for trial participants and data handling. Subject confidentiality must be maintained through the use of coded identifiers rather than names, with records kept in accordance with applicable laws and protected in all publications or reports. Serious adverse events (SAEs) reported on CRFs must be communicated immediately to the , followed by detailed written reports within specified timelines, using only subject identification codes to safeguard . Essential documents, including completed CRFs, must be retained by sponsors and investigators as required by applicable regulatory requirements or until the sponsor confirms they are no longer needed, whichever is longer (e.g., at least two years following the last marketing approval or formal discontinuation under certain regulations like 21 CFR 312.62). CRFs serve as essential documents critical for regulatory audits and inspections, enabling evaluation of trial conduct, , and with the . They ensure full of data from documents to regulatory submissions, with monitors verifying CRF accuracy, completeness, and consistency during site visits. These documents must be readily available to authorized personnel for inspection by regulatory authorities, demonstrating adherence to GCP standards. E6(R3) introduces greater focus on risk-based and the use of in , while maintaining core principles for CRFs. The ICH E6 guideline was first harmonized in 1996 and revised as E6(R2) in 2016 to provide a unified international standard for the European Union, Japan, and the United States, facilitating the mutual acceptance of clinical trial data. It has been adopted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as guidance in 2018, by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) effective June 2017, and endorsed by the World Health Organization (WHO) for global clinical trials to promote consistency in ethical practices. It was further revised as E6(R3) in 2025, adopted on January 6, 2025, with EMA implementation effective July 23, 2025, and FDA guidance published in September 2025.

Data Integrity and Validation

Data integrity in case report forms (CRFs) is paramount to ensure the reliability and trustworthiness of clinical trial data, particularly through adherence to the + principles, which expand on the foundational criteria to encompass Attributable (identifying who performed an action and when), Legible (clear and readable), Contemporaneous (recorded at the time of the action), Original (source data), and Accurate (error-free and valid), plus Complete (all required data present), Consistent (no contradictions), Enduring (durable over time), and Available (accessible when needed). These principles guide management practices in s, with CRFs (eCRFs) implementing them via secure electronic signatures that verify user identity and intent, and comprehensive logs that track all modifications, creations, and deletions to maintain an immutable record. Validation processes are integral to CRF data integrity, employing built-in edit checks during data entry to detect logical inconsistencies, such as mismatched dates or out-of-range values, thereby prompting immediate corrections. For paper-based CRFs, double data entry—where two independent operators input the same data and reconcile discrepancies—serves as a key verification method to minimize transcription errors. In electronic systems, validation aligns with FDA 21 CFR Part 11 requirements, which mandate system validation to ensure electronic records are accurate, complete, and reliable equivalents to paper records, often supplemented by risk-based monitoring that prioritizes high-impact data points for review. Security measures in eCRFs protect against unauthorized access and tampering through role-based access controls, which limit data visibility and editing privileges to specific user roles, such as investigators or data managers. Data encryption, both at rest and in transit, safeguards sensitive information using protocols like Secure Sockets Layer (SSL), while regular backup protocols ensure and recovery without integrity loss. Post-collection, query management involves generating automated queries for discrepant or incomplete , allowing sites to respond and resolve issues collaboratively before finalization. Database lock then finalizes the by prohibiting further changes, typically after exhaustive reviews and reconciliations, ensuring the is clean and ready for statistical analysis while preserving an for regulatory scrutiny.

Challenges and Best Practices

Common Challenges

One prevalent design issue in case report forms (CRFs) is inconsistent layouts and organization, which can confuse clinical site staff and lead to missed or erroneous data entries. Overly complex forms, characterized by redundant questions, referential dependencies, or unstructured response options, significantly increase the administrative burden on trial sites, often resulting in higher rates of incomplete submissions and prolonged processes. These design flaws are particularly acute in trials requiring extensive data points, such as those involving multiple visits or detailed . Implementation of CRFs encounters hurdles related to training deficiencies, where inadequate preparation of site personnel leads to frequent data entry errors and non-compliance with protocol specifications. Interoperability challenges arise when electronic CRFs (eCRFs) fail to integrate seamlessly with existing electronic health record systems or other trial platforms, complicating data flow and validation. In multi-site trials, synchronization delays occur due to manual data transfers or incompatible formats across centers, potentially extending timelines for database locks and interim analyses. Data-related problems in CRFs frequently include incomplete entries, with automated eCRF systems showing up to 16% of values unpopulated due to mapping limitations or source data gaps. Handling missing values remains challenging, as discrepancies between CRF entries and source documents—such as transcription errors or inconsistent documentation—require extensive query resolution, affecting overall . These issues are more pronounced in paper-based CRFs, where manual processes contribute to higher error rates compared to electronic formats. As of 2025, the integration of (AI) into processes, including automation of forms via for data population, has introduced challenges such as privacy concerns under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and risks of amplifying biases from incomplete real-world datasets.

Design and Implementation Best Practices

Effective design of forms (CRFs) begins with iterative prototyping involving end-users such as investigators, managers, and staff to ensure and alignment with clinical workflows. This process includes developing CRFs concurrently with the study protocol and statistical analysis plan, using multidisciplinary teams to refine layouts and reduce errors through user feedback. To minimize entry burden, limit fields to those essential for primary and secondary endpoints, avoiding redundancy by collecting each data point only once unless required for validation. Clear instructions, including examples and tooltips, should accompany each section, with questions phrased at a 5th-8th reading level to promote accuracy and reduce ambiguity. Incorporating skip logic early—branching questions based on prior responses—streamlines completion and prevents irrelevant collection, as recommended in standards for electronic CRFs (eCRFs). Implementation strategies emphasize rigorous testing and support to address common challenges like inconsistent . Pilot testing at select sites prior to full rollout identifies issues, followed by user for eCRFs to validate edit checks and data flow. Ongoing through e-learning modules and site initiation visits ensures staff understand CRF completion guidelines, with emphasis on protocol-specific requirements. Centralized monitoring dashboards enable real-time oversight of , flagging discrepancies via automated queries to facilitate timely resolution. Optimization leverages established standards for efficiency and adaptability. Using CDISC Clinical Data Acquisition Standards Harmonization (CDASH) templates accelerates by providing reusable domains and controlled , ensuring consistency across studies while allowing customization for needs. Designs should support scalability for adaptive trials, such as modular sections for interim analyses, and include plans for seamless to analysis platforms like datasets. Partial date collection and logical grouping of fields further enhance flexibility without compromising integrity. Success in CRF deployment is measured by key performance indicators, including query rates below 5% per form page and at least 95% of CRFs completed within protocol-specified timelines, aligning with industry benchmarks for data quality and efficiency. Achieving these metrics requires adherence to ALCOA+ principles (Attributable, Legible, Contemporaneous, Original, Accurate, plus Complete, Consistent, Enduring, and Available) throughout the process.

References

  1. [1]
    Basics of case report form designing in clinical research - PMC - NIH
    Case report form (CRF) is a specialized document in clinical research. It should be study protocol driven, robust in content and have material to collect ...
  2. [2]
    Glossary of Division of AIDS Clinical Research Policy Terms | NIAID
    Jul 1, 2025 · C. Case Report Form (CRF) A printed, optical, or electronic document ... form information related to the conduct of a clinical trial.
  3. [3]
    None
    Summary of each segment:
  4. [4]
    Everything You Need to Know About CRFs in Clinical Trials - Certara
    Mar 26, 2024 · A case report form (CRF) is a document designed to record all patient information that needs to be collected during a clinical trial.
  5. [5]
    What is a Case Report Form? - Novotech CRO
    Jun 3, 2021 · A Case Report Form (CRF) is a document used in clinical trials to record participant information, enabling data collection, processing, ...
  6. [6]
    [PDF] Guidance for Industry: Electronic Source data in Clinical Investigations
    98. 99 Electronic Case Report Form (eCRF): An auditable electronic record of information that. 100 generally is reported to the sponsor on each trial subject, ...
  7. [7]
    [PDF] Source documents, study worksheets, and case report forms (CRFs ...
    Source documents are original records, study worksheets facilitate recording, and CRFs are where data from source documents is transcribed.
  8. [8]
    The Nuremberg Code | Holocaust Encyclopedia
    On December 9, 1946, an American military tribunal opened criminal proceedings against 23 leading German physicians and administrators for their willing ...
  9. [9]
    Promoting Safe & Effective Drugs for 100 Years - FDA
    Apr 23, 2019 · "Also critically, the 1962 amendments required that the FDA specifically approve the marketing application before the drug could be marketed, ...Missing: impact | Show results with:impact
  10. [10]
    “A calculated risk”: the Salk polio vaccine field trials of 1954 - NIH
    The 1954 polio vaccine field trials used a singular statistical design · Over 600 000 schoolchildren were injected with vaccine or placebo and over a million ...Missing: data forms
  11. [11]
    [PDF] From the First Recorded Trial to Modern-Day Standards
    In the 1960s and 1970s, clinical trials began to expand beyond testing new drugs and devices. Researchers began using clinical trials to test different ...
  12. [12]
    The Transformation of Clinical Trials from Writing on Papyrus to the ...
    Jan 3, 2022 · Until the onset of the use of EDC systems in the 1990's, clinical trial case report forms (CRFs) were composed of three-part NCR (no carbon ...
  13. [13]
    Electronic Data Capture in Clinical Trials
    In early 1990s, the clinical research industry was more dependent upon paper-based systems for collection of patient data, leading to increased cost and ...
  14. [14]
    Unlocking Efficiency: Understanding the Role of EDC Clinical Trials
    Mar 14, 2024 · In the 1990s, seeking to address paper's limitations, the healthcare industry began adopting electronic data capture (EDC) systems. Early ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  15. [15]
    Part 11, Electronic Records; Electronic Signatures - Scope ... - FDA
    Aug 24, 2018 · This guidance is intended to describe the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) current thinking regarding the scope and application of part 11.
  16. [16]
    Clinical Data Acquisition Standards Harmonization importance and ...
    The consolidated first draft has been posted in May 2008 for review. The CDASH version 1.0 has been released by CDISC in October 2008, subsequently version 1.1 ...
  17. [17]
    Mobile electronic versus paper case report forms in clinical trials - NIH
    Dec 1, 2017 · This is the first study to prove in direct comparison that using eCRFs instead of pCRFs increases time efficiency of data collection in clinical trials.
  18. [18]
    Critical Path Initiative - FDA
    Apr 11, 2025 · The Critical Path Initiative (CPI) is FDA's national strategy for transforming the way FDA-regulated medical products are developed, evaluated, and ...Missing: 2005 electronic CRFs
  19. [19]
    Technology Adoption in Clinical Trials: Trends & Plateaus in 2023
    Oct 31, 2023 · At the same time, we see in the chart below nearly 80 percent of clinical trials use an Electronic Data Capture (EDC) system. About 45 percent ...
  20. [20]
    CDASH | CDISC
    Check out the eCRF Portal for ready-to-use, CDASH-compliant, annotated eCRFs, available in PDF, HTML and XML, to use as is or import to an EDC system for ...eCRF Portal · CDASH v1.1 · Cdash 2.1 · Library of CDASH CRF...Missing: 2009 | Show results with:2009
  21. [21]
    Design and implementation of an institutional case report form library
    Case report forms (CRFs) are used to collect data in clinical research. Case report form development represents a significant part of the clinical trial process ...
  22. [22]
    CRF Design for Oncology Trials - Quanticate
    Apr 5, 2024 · Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) provides standardized criteria for assessing tumor progression, stabilization, or ...
  23. [23]
    Tumor/Lesion Identification & Results - CDISC
    ... criteria. For example, for an oncology study using RECIST evaluation criteria, this equates to the identification of target, non-target, or new tumors. When ...
  24. [24]
    CDASHIG v2.0 - CDISC
    CDASH is composed of the CDASH Model and the CDASH Implementation Guide (CDASHIG), with its associated CDASHIG Metadata Table. A domain is a collection of data ...
  25. [25]
    [PDF] Structure and Content of Clinical Study Reports E3 - ICH
    The actual protocol and any changes should be included as appendix 16.1.1 and a sample case report form (unique pages only; i.e., it is not necessary to include ...
  26. [26]
    Controlled Terminology - CDISC
    Controlled Terminology is the set of codelists and valid values used with data items within CDISC-defined datasets. Controlled Terminology provides the values ...
  27. [27]
    How To Design a Case Report Form | 7 Best Practice Steps
    ### 7 Best Practice Steps for Designing a Case Report Form
  28. [28]
    [PDF] Design and Development of Data Collection Instruments
    Clinical data can be collected with a variety of tools, but case report forms are the most frequently used data collection tool.
  29. [29]
    [PDF] SDTM Automation with Standard CRF Pages - Lex Jansen
    At SCRI, we have used a template identifier and version date to uniquely identify CRF pages. Figure 2 is a simple example of an early clinical trial with the ...
  30. [30]
    Feasibility Assessment of Using CDISC Data Standards for In Silico ...
    Sep 21, 2023 · Since 17 December 2016, the FDA, CDER, and CBER require pharmaceutical submission data and metadata to be structured using CDISC standards, ...Missing: compliant | Show results with:compliant
  31. [31]
    [PDF] Guideline on computerised systems and electronic data in clinical ...
    Mar 9, 2023 · There is no requirement or expectation that the sponsors and investigators use computerised systems to collect data; however, the use of data ...
  32. [32]
    [PDF] Supporting submission and standardisation of data – an EMA update
    Jun 12, 2024 · Eftychia fosters EMA activities where data standards can have an added value, particularly for clinical trial data. She is also an observer ...
  33. [33]
    Clinical data extraction with OCR, OMR and ICR technology - eClinical
    After pre-processing, hand print (ICR), machine print (OCR) and checkbox (OMR) document recognition technology will extract data from a scanned document.
  34. [34]
    Data management Redefined - Perspectives in Clinical Research
    ... of capturing clinical trial data on paper and transcribing it into a database, the use of OMR (Optical Mark Recognition) and OCR (Optical Character Recognition) ...
  35. [35]
    https://www.eclinical.co.uk/how-it-works/extract/
  36. [36]
    Error Rates of Data Processing Methods in Clinical Research
    The accuracy associated with data processing methods varied widely, with error rates ranging from 2 errors per 10,000 fields to 2,784 errors per 10,000 fields.
  37. [37]
    Articles Development and validation of an open-source pipeline for ...
    Electronic data capture methods are now widely used, although more than 30% of studies still collect data via paper case report forms (CRFs). Only 20% of ...Articles · Results · Discussion<|control11|><|separator|>
  38. [38]
    Rave Electronic Data Capture (EDC) System | Medidata Solutions
    Rave EDC offers you fast implementation and maximum control to support clinical trials. Our flexible EDC system empowers clinical research teams to capture, ...
  39. [39]
    Electronic case report forms and electronic data capture within ...
    Electronic case report forms (eCRFs) capture clinical data for research, and electronic data capture (EDC) is the generic process of data capture.
  40. [40]
    Medidata Rave EDC Complementary Technologies - Sumble
    May 21, 2025 · It provides tools for designing electronic case report forms (eCRFs), managing user access, performing data validation, and generating reports.
  41. [41]
    eCRFs in Clinical Trials: What are they and How to Use them
    Jul 30, 2025 · The transition from traditional paper case report forms (CRFs) to electronic CRFs (eCRFs) is a foundational shift in how clinical data is ...
  42. [42]
    EDC 101: What is Electronic Data Capture in Clinical Trials?
    Aug 18, 2025 · Medidata's Rave electronic data capture system optimizes clinical trials by providing a comprehensive platform that enhances efficiency, data ...
  43. [43]
    Electronic Data Capture - Everything You Need To Know
    Jul 22, 2025 · Most modern systems are cloud-based with easy access and scalability. On-premises are less prevalent but might be used for specific security or ...
  44. [44]
    Cloud-Based vs. On-Premise EHR Systems - SelectHub
    Oct 20, 2025 · Cloud-based is an online Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) implementation that hosts the software in the cloud where users access it via the internet ...
  45. [45]
    Randomization Revolution is Brewing | Applied Clinical Trials Online
    The same report states that the average adoption of EDC across all phases grew from 15% to 50% from 2003 to 2008. Other examples of processes that have been ...
  46. [46]
    [PDF] Beyond EDC | Journal of the Society for Clinical Data Management
    Mar 12, 2021 · Introduction: The last two decades have seen Electronic Data Capture (EDC) scale the adoption curve in the therapeutic development industry.
  47. [47]
    Simplifying eCRF: Electronic Case Report Form in Clinical Trials
    Jul 8, 2024 · The incorporation of AI and ML into eCRFs promises efficient and informative trials, reducing costs, expediting timelines, and ultimately increasing the ...Ai In Clinical Trials: Key... · Automate Ecrf Creation · Mapping Of Cdash AnnotationsMissing: advantages | Show results with:advantages
  48. [48]
    [PDF] integrated addendum to ich e6(r1): guideline for good clinical practice
    Nov 9, 2016 · Compliance with this standard provides public assurance that the rights, safety and well-being of trial subjects are protected, consistent with ...
  49. [49]
    E6(R2) Good Clinical Practice: Integrated Addendum to ICH E6(R1)
    Nov 9, 2023 · The objective of this ICH GCP guidance is to provide a unified standard for the European Union, Japan, and the United States to facilitate the ...
  50. [50]
    [PDF] ICH: E 6 (R2): Guideline for good clinical practice - Step 5
    Dec 1, 2016 · Good Clinical Practice (GCP) is an international ethical and scientific quality standard for designing, conducting, recording and reporting ...
  51. [51]
    ALCOA, ALCOA+ and ALCOA++ Principles | Ensuring Data Integrity ...
    Oct 29, 2025 · ALCOA was then expanded to ALCOA Plus (ALCOA+), by the addition of a few more concepts which are; Complete, Consistent, Enduring and Available.
  52. [52]
    Good documentation practice in clinical research - PubMed Central
    This article focuses on the key principles of good documentation practice and offers suggestions for improvement. Keywords: ALCOA, documentation, source, ...Missing: ALCOA+ | Show results with:ALCOA+
  53. [53]
    [PDF] Electronic Systems, Electronic Records, and Electronic Signatures in ...
    Scope and Application (August 2003) ...
  54. [54]
    [PDF] Edit Check Design Principles - Society for Clinical Data Management
    Most edit checks are triggered during the data entry process, and may prompt the data entry operator to double check a value before saving the data. Other ...
  55. [55]
    21 CFR Part 11 -- Electronic Records; Electronic Signatures - eCFR
    This part applies to records in electronic form that are created, modified, maintained, archived, retrieved, or transmitted, under any records requirements set ...
  56. [56]
    Electronic CRF Security Requirements - Klindat
    May 17, 2023 · Web-based electronic CRFs use the Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) encryption protocol to preserve the security of client-server communications.
  57. [57]
    Comprehensive Guide to Electronic Case Report Forms (eCRF)
    Aug 16, 2024 · eCRF is a digital version of the traditional paper-based Case Report Form used in clinical trials to collect and manage data from participants.
  58. [58]
    Understanding Query Management in Clinical Trials - Quanticate
    Aug 12, 2025 · Near database lock, this can call for overtime or the need for extra staffing, which can raise cost and error risk. Delay in Timeline Slow query ...
  59. [59]
    Database Lock in Clinical Trials: Achieving Success - Medrio
    Mar 3, 2025 · A database lock (DBL) marks when a clinical trial's database is closed to any further changes. The DBL process involves reviewing and finalizing every data ...
  60. [60]
    [PDF] Clinical Research Seminar: Case Report Form Design
    Nov 17, 2021 · A Case Report Form (CRF) is a document to record protocol-required information, designed to collect data specified by the protocol, and should ...
  61. [61]
    Challenges in the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting in ... - NIH
    This study provided a comprehensive review of the challenges of clinical trial studies in different steps including design, conducting, analysis, and reporting
  62. [62]
    Developing Regulatory-compliant Electronic Case Report Forms for ...
    The use of electronic case report forms (CRF) to gather data in randomized clinical trials has grown to progressively replace paper-based forms.
  63. [63]
    Evaluating automated electronic case report form data entry ... - NIH
    Data entry errors included recording the first value after 8:00 am instead of the value closest to 8:00 am, entering data for the wrong day (i.e., 1 day ahead ...
  64. [64]
    Ethical challenges and evolving strategies in the integration of ...
    Apr 8, 2025 · This paper examines the current state of AI in healthcare, focusing on five critical ethical concerns: justice and fairness, transparency, patient consent and ...
  65. [65]
    Tips to Design an Optimal Case Report Form - Linical
    Jun 17, 2024 · Design a CRF by avoiding duplication, being clear and concise, using proper formatting, adequate data flow, and aligning with the protocol.
  66. [66]
    How to Design Electronic Case Report Form (eCRF) Questions to ...
    Mar 3, 2025 · Case report forms (CRFs) are essential tools employed by research organizations worldwide to gather detailed information from patients and study ...
  67. [67]
    5 Key Steps of eCRF Design in Clinical Trials - Quanticate
    Mar 19, 2024 · The aim of the eCRF is to collect the study clinical data in line with the principles outlined by ALCOA. The below steps will help with this process.<|separator|>
  68. [68]
    Time to Change the Clinical Trial Monitoring Paradigm
    Jan 17, 2014 · This represents an overall form query rate of 3.9%. However, only 403 (37.6%) of the queries resulted in changes to the database.Methods · Results · Discussion