Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

SDTM

The Study Data Tabulation Model (SDTM) is a foundational standard developed by the Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium (CDISC) for organizing and formatting clinical trial data to streamline its collection, management, analysis, and reporting.^[1] SDTM structures data into datasets called domains, which are grouped by general observation classes including Interventions (treatments administered), Events (occurrences like adverse events), Findings (measurements or observations), and Findings About (special-purpose findings related to other classes).^[1] These domains preserve the original meaning of the collected data without alteration, enabling consistent variable definitions and the creation of custom domains when needed.^[1] Established as part of CDISC's efforts since the organization's founding in 1997 and first published in 2004, SDTM has evolved to support regulatory submissions and is now a required standard for electronic data submissions to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Japan's Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA).^[1] Its adoption enhances data interoperability, facilitates aggregation and reuse across studies, and improves efficiency in regulatory reviews, ultimately accelerating drug development and approval processes.^[1] SDTM is implemented through versions such as v2.0 (2021) and the current v2.1 (2024), accompanied by the SDTM Implementation Guide (SDTMIG) and controlled terminology to ensure uniformity.^[1]

Introduction

Definition and Purpose

The Study Data Tabulation Model (SDTM) is a standardized framework developed by the Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium (CDISC) for organizing and formatting clinical study data in a consistent manner.^[1]^[2] It serves as a foundational metadata model that structures both raw and derived data from human and animal clinical trials into tabular datasets, ensuring that the original meaning of the observations is preserved while enabling efficient data handling.^[1]^[2] The primary purpose of SDTM is to facilitate the exchange, analysis, review, and submission of study data to regulatory authorities, such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Japan's Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA), with recommendations for others like the European Medicines Agency (EMA).^[2] By providing a predictable format for cleaned, final case report form (CRF) data, SDTM streamlines processes across the clinical trial lifecycle—from data collection to reporting—while supporting regulatory review and reuse of data for secondary purposes like aggregation and warehousing.^[1]^[3] Key benefits include reduced errors in data management, enhanced interoperability among sponsors, contract research organizations (CROs), and regulators, and the ability to locate and interpret data without requiring study-specific knowledge.^[1] In SDTM, data is represented in a relational tabular format where rows correspond to individual observations—discrete data points collected during the study—and columns represent variables with predefined roles.^[1]^[2] These variables use standardized names and are categorized into types such as identifiers (e.g., study ID, subject ID), topic variables (describing the focus of the observation), and qualifiers (providing additional context like timing or severity).^[2] This structure ensures clarity and consistency, grouping related observations into domains for easier analysis.^[1]

Historical Development

The Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium (CDISC) was founded in 1997 as a volunteer organization to develop standards for the exchange of clinical research data, addressing the growing need for consistency in pharmaceutical submissions to regulatory authorities.^[4] By 2004, inconsistencies in clinical data submissions had become a significant challenge, prompting CDISC to publish the first version of the Study Data Tabulation Model (SDTM) as version 1.0 in June 2004. This initial release established a foundational framework for organizing tabulation datasets in a standardized manner, primarily focused on human clinical trials.^[5] Subsequent updates refined and expanded the model to meet evolving needs. SDTM version 1.1, released in April 2005, introduced core domains to better structure common data elements across studies.^[6] Version 1.2, released in 2007, added support for animal studies by incorporating additional variables relevant to nonclinical data, broadening the model's applicability beyond human trials.^[7] Regulatory feedback further drove development; in 2010, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued draft guidance on electronic submissions that emphasized SDTM's role, mandating its use for certain applications and spurring iterative enhancements to ensure compatibility with review processes.^[8] The model's evolution has been guided by the need for harmonization with other CDISC standards, such as the Analysis Data Model (ADaM) for derived datasets and the Operational Data Model (ODM) for data acquisition.^[1] As of 2025, the current version is SDTM v2.1, released in June 2024, which includes new dataset and variable standards to meet domain model needs, building on v2.0 from November 2021 that introduced enhanced metadata structures and backward compatibility for both human and non-human studies. The accompanying SDTM Implementation Guide (SDTMIG) version 3.4, released in November 2021, provides the latest guidance, including updates for therapeutic areas, new domain support, and clarified business rules to facilitate regulatory compliance.^[9]^[10]^[11]

Core Components

Datasets

In the Study Data Tabulation Model (SDTM), a dataset represents a fundamental unit of data organization, consisting of a single flat table that captures observations related to a specific aspect of a clinical study. Each row in the dataset corresponds to an individual observation, while each column defines a variable that describes attributes of those observations, such as identifiers, timings, or results. This tabular structure facilitates standardized data submission and review by regulatory authorities.^[2] Datasets in SDTM adhere to standardized file naming conventions to ensure consistency and ease of identification. Each dataset is named using a unique two-letter domain code—such as DM for the Demographics domain—followed by the .xpt extension, which denotes the SAS transport file format commonly used for regulatory submissions. Custom datasets may employ codes prefixed with X, Y, or Z to distinguish them from standard ones.^[12] Core variables are essential components of every SDTM dataset, providing traceability and linkage across the study data. These include STUDYID, which uniquely identifies the study, and USUBJID, which serves as the unique subject identifier within that study. In addition to these identifiers, datasets incorporate domain-specific variables categorized by roles, such as topic variables (e.g., defining the focus of an observation), timing variables (e.g., capturing when an observation occurred), and qualifier variables (e.g., providing additional details like results or units). All datasets must include these core elements to maintain relational integrity.^[12] To manage interconnections without embedding unrelated information directly into primary datasets, SDTM employs mechanisms for linking data across tables. The RELREC dataset establishes relationships between records in different datasets, using variables like RDOMAIN (referencing the related domain), IDVAR (specifying the linking variable), and RELTYPE (indicating the type of relationship, such as one-to-one or one-to-many). Complementing this, SUPPQUAL datasets store supplemental qualifiers that extend primary datasets, linking back via qualifiers like QNAM and QVAL to preserve data structure and avoid redundancy. These approaches ensure comprehensive data integrity while supporting modular organization.^[12] SDTM datasets accommodate three primary data types to represent diverse clinical information: character for textual data (e.g., subject identifiers or categorical results), numeric for quantitative measurements (e.g., standardized result values), and date/time variables formatted according to the ISO 8601 standard (e.g., YYYY-MM-DD or YYYY-MM-DDThh:mm:ss for partial or full timestamps). The mandatory use of ISO 8601 for dates promotes interoperability and precise temporal analysis across datasets.^[12]

Domains

In the Study Data Tabulation Model (SDTM), a domain represents a collection of logically related observations with a common, specific topic that are normally collected for all subjects in a clinical investigation, and each domain is typically stored in a single dataset identified by a unique two-letter prefix such as AE for Adverse Events or LB for Laboratory Test Results.^[13] This grouping ensures that related data elements are cohesively organized to support efficient analysis and regulatory review.^[1] All clinical studies require inclusion of core domains such as DM (Demographics) to capture essential subject-level information like age, sex, and race.^[12] Other domains are designated as expected or permissible based on the study protocol; for instance, expected domains like AE must be included if adverse event data is collected, while permissible domains such as CO (Comments) are added only if relevant to the study design.^[12] Data within domains is systematically organized using standardized variables, including topic variables to define the focus of observations (e.g., --TESTCD for test codes in laboratory data), timing variables to record occurrence or collection details (e.g., --DTC for date/time of the observation), and qualifiers to supply contextual or descriptive information (e.g., --STRESC for standardized character results).^[12] This variable framework promotes consistency across datasets while allowing for the relational linking of observations through shared identifiers like USUBJID (unique subject identifier).^[12] To accommodate non-standard data that does not align with predefined models, custom domains can be developed using sponsor-defined prefixes such as X, Y, or Z, ensuring they adhere to SDTM principles like variable roles and controlled terminology.^[12] Alternatively, supplemental qualifier datasets (prefixed with SUPP--) store additional variables tied to standard domains, such as non-standard qualifiers for demographics in SUPPDM, without modifying the core domain structure.^[12] SDTM version 2.0 specifies approximately 20 standard domains, which can be extended via implementation guides to incorporate study-specific requirements while maintaining overall standardization.^[9]

Domain Classifications

Special-Purpose Domains

Special-purpose domains in the Study Data Tabulation Model (SDTM) provide essential subject-level metadata and study context, including demographics, identifiers, and protocol elements, which are mandatory for all clinical trials to facilitate data interpretation and regulatory review. These domains stand apart from general observation classes by focusing on fixed, non-observational structures that support the overall trial framework rather than specific interventions, events, or findings.^[12] Key special-purpose domains include the Demographics (DM) domain, which captures subject characteristics such as age, sex, and race in a single record per subject to describe the study population; the Subject Visits (SV) domain, which documents planned and actual visit timings to align data across the study timeline; and the Comments (CO) domain, which records general comments about subjects or study elements.^[12]^[2] Additional examples encompass the Subject Elements (SE) domain for tracking device or implant assignments to subjects, the Trial Arms (TA) domain outlining randomization and arm assignments, and the Trial Summary (TS) domain summarizing study-level metrics such as enrollment totals and duration.^[2]^[14] Unlike observation class domains, special-purpose domains employ a rigid structure with predefined variables, omitting standard topic or timing variables to prioritize metadata consistency and simplicity.^[12] The SDTM Implementation Guide version 3.4 introduced enhanced support for medical devices within the SE domain, improving traceability of non-drug study elements like implants in clinical trials.^[10]

General Observation Classes

In the Study Data Tabulation Model (SDTM), general observation classes organize domains based on the nature of the study data they represent, primarily grouping them into three categories: Interventions, Events, and Findings. These classes provide a standardized framework for capturing dynamic observations from clinical trials, ensuring consistency in data structure and submission to regulatory authorities. All domains within these classes share a common structure, including identifier variables (e.g., STUDYID, USUBJID), topic variables that define the focus of the observation (e.g., --TRT for treatments or --TESTCD for tests), timing variables that record when the observation occurred (e.g., --STDTC for start date-time), and qualifier variables that provide additional details such as grouping factors, results, or synonyms. This modular design facilitates interoperability and analysis across studies.^[2]^[12] The Interventions class captures data on treatments or procedures administered to study subjects, emphasizing what was given and how it was delivered. Key domains include Exposure (EX), which records investigational product administration, and Concomitant Medications (CM), which documents non-study drugs taken during the trial. Structure follows the general observation model, with topic variables like --TRT (treatment name) identifying the intervention, and timing variables such as --STDTC and --ENDTC capturing administration periods. Class-specific qualifiers highlight dosage details, including --DOSE (dose amount), --DOSU (dose units), and --ROUTE (administration route, e.g., oral or intravenous), which are expected variables when applicable. Rules mandate one record per dosing interval or episode, with multiple administrations split into separate records to maintain granularity.^[2]^[12] The Events class documents occurrences or incidents affecting subjects over time, such as protocol-defined milestones or unexpected happenings. Representative domains are Adverse Events (AE), which logs safety incidents; Clinical Events (CE), for disease-specific occurrences; and Disposition (DS), tracking subject status changes like withdrawals. These domains use topic variables like --TERM (event term) to specify the event, paired with timing variables including --STDTC (start date-time) and --ENDTC (end date-time) to delineate duration. Qualifiers include result flags such as --SER (serious event indicator) or --SEV (severity), which classify the event's impact. A core rule is one record per distinct event, with pre-specified events flagged via --OCCUR (occurrence indicator) to distinguish planned from incidental reports.^[2]^[12] The Findings class, the largest of the general observation classes, records measurements, observations, or evaluations derived from subjects, often from planned assessments. Examples include Laboratory Test Results (LB) for analyte measurements, Vital Signs (VS) for physiological metrics like blood pressure, and Questionnaires (QS) for patient-reported outcomes. Topic variables such as --TESTCD (test code) and --TEST (test name) identify the finding, while timing is captured via domain-specific variables like --LBELTM (lab collection time). Key qualifiers focus on results: --ORRES (original result value in reported units) for raw data, --STRESC (standardized character result) for character-based standardization, and --STRESN (standardized numeric result) for numeric conversions, enabling cross-study comparability. This class also encompasses a subtype, "Findings About," which details observations related to Interventions or Events (e.g., severity assessments of an adverse event) using --OBJ (object) to link back to the parent domain. Rules require one record per unique finding or test result, with multiple observations necessitating separate entries.^[2]^[12] Class-specific rules across these categories ensure data integrity and relevance: Interventions prioritize administration specifics like dose and route to support pharmacokinetic analysis; Events incorporate outcome flags (e.g., --OUT for resolution status) to track progression; and Findings emphasize standardized result forms (--STRESC, --STRESN) alongside originals (--ORRES) for regulatory review, with supplemental qualifiers like --SPEC (specimen type) or --POS (position) used as permitted when they add essential context without altering core structure. These conventions, defined in the SDTM Implementation Guide, promote uniform data representation while accommodating study variability.^[12]

Implementation and Standards

SDTM Implementation Guide

The Study Data Tabulation Model Implementation Guide (SDTMIG) serves as the official CDISC document providing detailed instructions, assumptions, business rules, and examples for creating standardized tabulation datasets compliant with the SDTM model. It outlines the organization, structure, and formatting of data to facilitate regulatory submissions and data interchange in human clinical trials. The guide emphasizes traceability from source data to SDTM datasets, ensuring consistency and interoperability across studies.^[10] SDTMIG version 3.4, released on July 21, 2022, supersedes version 3.3 and aligns with SDTM version 2.0, introducing enhancements such as new domains for biospecimen events (BE) and findings (BS), cell phenotype (CP), genomics (GF), and device identifiers (DI) to support medical device data representation. It also refines variable usage, including the promotion of --CLSIG (clinical significance) from supplemental to a standard variable, building on prior introductions like --LOBXFL (last observation before exposure flag) from v3.3, along with updated timing conventions using ISO 8601 formats. Therapeutic area-specific appendices expand applicability, covering oncology (e.g., RECIST 1.1 criteria in RS and TU/TR domains), autoimmune diseases, tuberculosis, vaccine trials, and infectious diseases. As of November 2025, SDTMIG v4.0 is in public review, aligned with SDTM v3.0, introducing enhancements like improved relationship representations (details pending final release).^[10]^[15]^[16] Key sections of the SDTMIG include domain templates in Sections 5 through 7, which provide variable-level metadata specifying required, expected, and permissible variables for special-purpose domains (e.g., demographics in DM), general observation classes (e.g., adverse events in AE), and trial design datasets (e.g., trial arms in TA). Traceability rules, detailed in Section 4.1 and Section 8, mandate the use of reference variables like --REFID and --RELNUM in RELREC datasets to link records across domains, preserving data provenance. Handling of missing values follows Section 4.2.5 conventions, using null flavor codes (e.g., U for unknown) or status variables like --STAT; partial dates are addressed in Section 4.4.2, allowing truncated ISO 8601 representations (e.g., 2021-11 for year-month) to reflect data precision without imputation. Null flavors for variables like race (e.g., U for unknown or NI for no information) are managed via submission metadata standards such as nullFlavor attributes in DEFINE-XML.^[10] Mapping guidance appears in Sections 3.2, 4, and 6, offering steps to derive SDTM datasets from non-standard source data, such as transforming vertical laboratory results (LB) into horizontal format or mapping LOINC codes for tests. It requires submission of dataset-level metadata via DEFINE-XML to describe structure, origins, and derivations, ensuring reviewers can trace modifications. For instance, sponsor-computed variables must include origin descriptions in Define-XML's ValueList or Computations elements. Therapeutic area extensions, integrated as appendices, provide domain-specific user guides; for example, the oncology appendix details tumor identification (TU) and response (RS) modeling to align with standards like Lugano criteria, while infectious disease content adapts findings domains for pathogen-related data.^[10]^[17]

Controlled Terminology

Controlled terminology in the Study Data Tabulation Model (SDTM) consists of standardized codelists and valid values maintained by the Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium (CDISC) in collaboration with the National Cancer Institute's Enterprise Vocabulary Services (NCI EVS), ensuring consistent representation of data across clinical trial submissions. These codelists define permissible values for specific variables, such as --SEX (with codes M for male, F for female, and U for unknown or not available), and test codes in findings domains like LBTESTCD for laboratory measurements. By enforcing uniform vocabulary, controlled terminology promotes data interoperability, facilitates regulatory review, and minimizes errors in data interpretation.^[18]^[19] The controlled terminology is published and maintained by NCI EVS, with updates released quarterly to align with evolving standards; for instance, version CT 2025-09-26 corresponds to SDTM Implementation Guide (SDTMIG) v3.4. New terms can be requested through the NCI EVS submission form, and the terminology is distributed via FTP sites and integrated into tools like the CDISC Library for easy access. This maintenance process ensures that the vocabulary remains current with scientific advancements and regulatory requirements, with each release including metadata on codelist definitions, synonyms, and mappings.^[20]^[19]^[21] Controlled terminology encompasses several types to accommodate different data needs: permissible values, which are extensible lists allowing sponsor additions beyond the core set (e.g., for certain demographic qualifiers); fixed codelists, which restrict values to predefined options like units of measure (e.g., KG for kilograms in --STRESU); and external dictionaries such as MedDRA for adverse events, where terms are coded hierarchically. Paired codelists, like TEST/TESTCD for test names and codes in findings domains, further structure the data by linking short codes to descriptive text. These types support both standard and sponsor-specific extensions while maintaining traceability.^[18]^[19] In SDTM applications, controlled terminology is mandatory for variables such as --TERM in events domains (e.g., AETERM in the Adverse Events domain, decoded via MedDRA to --DECOD for the preferred term), ensuring that raw terms are mapped to standardized codes for analysis. For external or sponsor-defined codelists, variables like EXTPROD (external product) and EXTSRC (external source) in supplemental qualifiers reference the originating system, such as a proprietary thesaurus, while still adhering to core standards. This approach allows flexibility for unique study elements without compromising overall consistency. Validation of compliance is typically performed using tools like Pinnacle 21, which flags deviations from the specified codelists; non-compliance can result in regulatory submission rejections by agencies like the FDA, as it undermines data quality and review efficiency.^[18]^[22]^[23]

Applications and Requirements

Regulatory Submissions

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) mandates the submission of clinical study data in the Study Data Tabulation Model (SDTM) format for new drug applications (NDAs), biologics license applications (BLAs), and abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) conducted under the electronic Common Technical Document (eCTD) specification, applicable to studies initiated after December 17, 2016.^[24] This requirement supports standardized data review and analysis, with the FDA specifying supported versions through its Data Standards Catalog.^[25] Support for the SDTM Implementation Guide (SDTMIG) version 3.1.2 ended on March 15, 2019, while version 3.3 became the standard following its support start on March 15, 2021, and requirement date of March 15, 2022.^[26] In December 2023, the FDA announced the end of support for SDTMIG version 3.2, effective December 13, 2023, transitioning to version 3.4 as the current supported iteration.^[27] As of 2025, SDTMIG version 3.4 is recommended for new submissions, with version 4.0 anticipated in future updates to align with ongoing CDISC advancements.^[28] Regulatory authorities outside the U.S. have aligned with SDTM through International Council for Harmonisation (ICH) efforts to promote global standardization. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) has accepted SDTM-formatted data via eCTD submissions since 2015, facilitating harmonized review processes although not imposing the same mandatory requirements as the FDA. As of 2025, the EMA is piloting the submission of individual patient data in standardized formats through a proof-of-concept initiative, with potential mandatory requirements under consideration.^[29] Similarly, Japan's Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA) mandates SDTM for electronic study data in new drug applications for studies initiated on or after April 1, 2020, emphasizing its role in efficient data validation and assessment.^[30] These alignments via ICH guidelines ensure interoperability, with both EMA and PMDA participating in CDISC updates to maintain consistency with FDA standards.^[31] Submissions adhering to SDTM must follow specified formats to ensure technical conformance. Datasets are required in SAS XPORT Transport File version 5 (.xpt) format, which provides a standardized, uncompressed structure for data exchange without custom SAS formats.^[32] Accompanying metadata is submitted via DEFINE-XML version 2.0, detailing dataset structures, variable origins, and controlled terminology usage to enable automated validation.^[32] Additionally, a Study Data Reviewer's Guide is mandatory, offering contextual explanations of the submission, including any standard deviations, data derivations, and review aids to support FDA reviewers.^[32] Validation and review processes are governed by the FDA's Data Standards Catalog, which lists current standards and timelines for compliance.^[25] Submissions are checked against the FDA Validation Rules, with non-compliance—such as outdated SDTMIG versions or format errors—resulting in technical rejections, potentially delaying review.^[33] For instance, failure to use supported standards as of the study start date triggers rejection criteria, underscoring the need for early implementation during study design.^[32] This framework ensures data integrity and accelerates regulatory decision-making across aligned authorities.

Integration with Other CDISC Standards

SDTM interfaces with other CDISC standards to facilitate a standardized end-to-end workflow in clinical data management, from collection through analysis and submission. The Operational Data Model (ODM) serves as the foundational standard for data collection and exchange, where SDTM datasets are derived from ODM structures such as electronic case report forms (eCRFs). Traceability between ODM-collected data and SDTM tabulation datasets is maintained through variable mapping, ensuring that raw observations can be systematically transformed while preserving linkages for audit and review purposes.^[34] A key linkage exists between SDTM and the Analysis Data Model (ADaM), where SDTM provides the standardized tabulation data as the primary input for creating ADaM datasets. ADaM builds upon SDTM by deriving analysis-ready datasets that incorporate additional variables for statistical computations, such as derived time variables or population flags, while maintaining traceability back to SDTM domains to support reproducible analyses. For instance, SDTM findings domains, like laboratory results in the LB domain, feed directly into ADaM structures to derive efficacy endpoints for reporting.^[35]^[1] Define-XML complements SDTM by providing a metadata standard that describes the structure, content, and origins of SDTM datasets. It includes detailed annotations for variables, such as data types and roles, along with references to controlled terminology codelists, enabling automated validation and regulatory review of submissions. In the broader CDISC ecosystem, SDTM integrates with the Standard for Exchange of Nonclinical Data (SEND), which implements SDTM principles for nonclinical studies, and with therapeutic area user guides that extend SDTM domains for specific disease contexts, such as oncology or cardiovascular research.^[17]^[36]^[1] Version alignment across these standards ensures seamless interoperability; for example, SDTM version 2.0 is harmonized with ADaM version 2.1 and the SDTM Implementation Guide (SDTMIG) version 3.4, supporting consistent data flows from tabulation to analysis and reporting without structural mismatches.^[1]^[35]^[37]

Challenges and Evolutions

Limitations

The Study Data Tabulation Model (SDTM) exhibits rigidity in its fixed domain structure, which is primarily designed for traditional interventional clinical trials with predefined interventions and timelines, making it less adaptable to novel study designs such as observational studies or those incorporating real-world evidence (RWE) from wearables and longitudinal data sources.^[38] This limitation often necessitates the creation of custom domains or adaptations, which introduce complexities in data mapping and validation processes, as the core model does not fully accommodate diverse RWD formats without significant reformatting efforts.^[38] Supplemental qualifiers (SUPP--) in SDTM, intended for non-standard variables, frequently result in fragmented datasets that escalate complexity, particularly in large-scale studies where oncology trials, for instance, generate an average of 17.5 SUPPQUAL datasets compared to 12.2 in non-oncology studies.^[39] With studies averaging 13.7 SUPPQUAL datasets and up to 68.4% of qualified domains relying on them, this approach leads to data volume issues, including inconsistent implementation across 27,023 unique records in analyzed submissions, hindering efficient analysis and management.^[39] Frequent updates to the SDTM Implementation Guide (SDTMIG), such as transitions from version 3.2 to 3.3, impose burdens on remapping legacy data, exacerbated by incomplete backward compatibility in practice despite intentions for it, as regulatory enforcements like FDA's post-2016 requirements demand specific versions.^[40] These changes since 2018, combined with mergers or acquisitions, require harmonization of non-compliant legacy formats, leading to redundant workflows, validation challenges, and prolonged release cycles due to fragmented metadata and system interoperability issues.^[41] User criticisms of SDTM highlight its limited support for specialized data types in the core model, such as genomics, where integration of diverse formats like FASTQ or VCF files from varying sequencing technologies and reference genomes poses standardization challenges, often resulting in inadequate handling of large volumes and missing data from failed or unconsented samples.^[42] Similarly, for imaging data, SDTM struggles with variable reporting of endpoints like lesion labels across studies, complicating database construction and mapping due to protocol-specific complexities in over 500 active oncology trials.^[43] As of 2025, implementation gaps persist in guidance for AI/ML-derived data within SDTM, with no specific regulatory protocols established, leading to inconsistencies in regulatory reviews due to dependencies on input data quality, complex transformations requiring manual oversight, and difficulties in discerning specification nuances.^[44]

Future Developments

The Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium (CDISC) is actively developing SDTM version 3.0 and the SDTM Implementation Guide (SDTMIG) version 4.0. As of November 2025, SDTM v3.0 remains in internal review resolution, with public reviews anticipated in 2026 to incorporate advancements in data modeling and implementation guidance.^[45]^[46] These updates aim to refine metadata structures, introduce decision trees for domain selection, and enhance overall flexibility in data organization for clinical trials.^[47] Key enhancements focus on expanding SDTM domains to accommodate digital health technologies, such as data from wearable sensors and mobile applications, enabling better capture of real-time, patient-generated information in clinical studies.^[48] Additionally, efforts are underway to improve longitudinal data handling through refined variable definitions and to align SDTM with HL7 FHIR standards via joint mapping implementation guides, facilitating interoperability between clinical trial data and electronic health records.^[49]^[50] The CDISC roadmap emphasizes integration with real-world data standards to support broader evidence generation, alongside therapeutic area user guides that extend to emerging fields like rare diseases, providing disease-specific examples for SDTM implementation.^[51]^[52] Automation advancements, including AI-driven tools for SDTM mapping and transformation, are being explored to streamline data standardization processes.^[53] Regulatory bodies are aligning with these evolutions; the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) plans updates to its Data Standards Catalog following 2025 to test and incorporate new CDISC standards, including potential support for SDTMIG v4.0.^[28] The International Council for Harmonisation (ICH) continues global harmonization initiatives that complement CDISC standards like SDTM, promoting consistent data requirements across regulatory authorities.^[54] Community engagement drives these developments through ongoing white papers on standards automation and public review periods, allowing stakeholders to provide input on enhancing SDTM's adaptability to modern trial designs.^[55]^[56]

References

[1]
SDTM - CDISC
SDTM provides a standard for organizing and formatting data to streamline processes in collection, management, analysis and reporting.Sdtmig · SDTM v2.1 · SDTM v2.0 · SDTM Metadata Submission...
[2]
SDTM v1.6 - CDISC
This document describes the Study Data Tabulation Model (SDTM), which defines a standard structure for study data tabulations that are to be submitted as part ...
[3]
SDTM v1.7 - CDISC
This document describes the Study Data Tabulation Model (SDTM), which defines a standard structure for study data tabulations.
[4]
SDTM and CDASH: Why You Need Both - CDISC
SDTM represents cleaned, final CRF data organized in a predictable format that facilitates data transmission, review and reuse.
[5]
Founder and President Emeritus - CDISC
CDISC began as an all-volunteer organization in 1997 with no funding. After developing two draft standards and a glossary, CDISC was incorporated as a non- ...Missing: history | Show results with:history
[6]
[PDF] The CDISC Study Data Tabulation Model (SDTM) - Lexjansen.com
ABSTRACT. The CDISC (Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium) SDTM is a standard for submitting data tabulations to the FDA.
[7]
SDTM v1.1 - CDISC
Apr 28, 2005 · SDTM v1.1. SDTM v1.1. Release Information; Files & Links; Related Standards. Published Date: 28 April 2005. Version 1.1 of the Study Data ...
[8]
[PDF] Project: Implementation Plan for CDISC SDTM & ADaM Standards
In July of 2007, SDTM version 1.2 was released along with an implementation guide 3.1. ... Technology Plan that indicated that the anticipated publication date ...
[9]
[PDF] Providing Regulatory Submissions In Electronic Format
In section 745A(a), Congress granted explicit authorization to FDA to implement the statutory electronic submission requirements in guidance. Accordingly, as ...
[10]
SDTM v2.0 - CDISC
Nov 29, 2021 · Version 2.0 of the Study Data Tabulation Model (SDTM) describes the general conceptual model for representing clinical study data.
[11]
SDTMIG v3.4 - CDISC
Nov 29, 2021 · SDTMIG; SDTMIG v3.4. SDTMIG v3.4. Release Information; Files & Links; Related Standards; Errors; Known Issues. Published Date: 29 November 2021.
[12]
SDTMIG v3.3 - CDISC
Version 3.3 provides specific domain models, assumptions, business rules, and examples for preparing standard tabulation datasets that are based on the SDTM.
[13]
Domain vs. Dataset: What's the Difference? - CDISC
Domain: A collection of logically related observations with a common, specific topic that are normally collected for all subjects in a clinical investigation.
[14]
[PDF] Seven New SDTM Domains for Medical Devices - Lex Jansen
The Device Properties special-purpose domain is used to report characteristics of the device that are important to include in the submission, and that do not ...
[15]
https://www.cdisc.org/standards/foundational/medical-devices-sdtmig
[16]
Define-XML | CDISC
### Summary of Define-XML's Role in Describing SDTM Datasets
[17]
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 ...
[18]
CDISC SDTM Controlled Terminology
Summary of each segment:
[19]
CDISC Terminology - NCI - National Cancer Institute
Sep 3, 2025 · NCI EVS maintains and distributes SDTM controlled terminology as part of NCIt. Download from the CDISC SDTM directory on an NCI FTP site in ...About CDISC · Clinical Data Acquisition... · Protocol Terminology · Digital Data Flow
[20]
Controlled Terminology: FAQs - CDISC
Staff from the National Cancer Institute's Enterprise Vocabulary Services (NCI-EVS) manage the development of Controlled Terminology. Controlled Terminology ...
[21]
Configuring Pinnacle 21 Community Validator 2.x for CDISC CT
CDISC Controlled Terminologies are commonly used to constrain variable values used in standards such as SDTM, ADaM and SEND.
[22]
[PDF] Validating Controlled Terminology in SDTM Domains - Lex Jansen
An important extension of SDTM domains concerns controlled terminology, which represents a discrete set of values for a given variable. These sets of values ...
[23]
[PDF] Submitting Data to CDER: Requirements for your Application - FDA
For Study Data Tabulation Model (SDTM) data, a DM dataset and define.xml must be submitted in Module. 5 required sections. For Analysis Data Model (ADaM) data ...
[24]
[XLS] FDA Data Standards Catalog
Use CDISC Submission Values. Do not use for studies initiated after 2011-06-13. Standardized Study Data, Index of CDISC SDTM Terminology, Study Data Technical ...
[25]
[XLS] FDA Data Standards Catalog
Data Exchange Standards: - Updated SDTM v1.2 IG v3.1.2, IG v3 ... Terminology Standards: - Updated MedDRA Date Support Ends and Date Requirement Ends to 3 ...
[26]
Data Standards; Support and Requirement Begins for the Clinical ...
Dec 13, 2023 · Support for CDISC SDTMv2.0, SDTMIGv3.4, and SENDIG-Genetoxv1.0 begins December 13, 2023. The transition date for these version updates is March ...
[27]
[PDF] CBER-CDER Data Standards Program Action Plan - FDA
Sep 26, 2025 · This CBER-CDER project tests new and updated study data standards and standards adjacent properties to establish FDA support and requirements.
[28]
[PDF] Provisional Translation (as of March 2025) * * This English version ...
A: The PMDA conducts validation for the consistency between SDTM datasets and ADaM datasets as well as validations of each SDTM or ADaM dataset. Moreover, the ...
[29]
[PDF] Harmonising FDA and PMDA requirements - Lex Jansen
SDTM-IG v3.1.2 (SDTM v1.2) or later. ADaM. ▫ ADaM-IG v1.1 or later (ADaM v2.1) ... ▫ Define.xml v1.0 support will end on March. 31st, 2025. PMDA strongly ...
[30]
[PDF] Study Data Technical Conformance Guide_v4.9_March 2022 - FDA
It is recommended that sponsors implement the SDTM standard for representation of clinical trial tabulation data prior to the conduct of the study. The SDTMIG ...
[31]
[PDF] FDA Study Data Technical Rejection Criteria (TRC): What you need ...
May 4, 2022 · ▫ NDA, BLA, ANDA studies that started after December 17th, 2016. ▫ Commercial IND studies that started after December 17th, 2017. ❖CBER Non ...
[32]
ODM - CDISC
ODM is a vendor-neutral, platform-independent format for exchanging and archiving clinical and translational research data.
[33]
ADaM - CDISC
ADaM defines dataset and metadata standards that support: efficient generation, replication, and review of clinical trial statistical analyses, ...ADaMIG v1.3 · ADaM v2.1 · ADaM Structure for... · ADaM Examples of...
[34]
SEND - CDISC
SEND is an implementation of the SDTM standard for nonclinical studies. SEND specifies a way to collect and present nonclinical data in a consistent format.SENDIG v3.1.1 · SENDIG v3.1 · SENDIG-Genetox v1.0 · SENDIG-DART v1.2
[35]
SDTMIG - CDISC
Where the SDTM provides a standard model for organizing and formatting data for human and animal studies, the SDTMIG is intended to guide the organization, ...SDTM and SDTMIG... · SDTMIG v3.4 · SDTM v2.0 · SDTMIG v3.3
[36]
[PDF] CDISC RWD Connect Report of Qualitative Delphi Survey ...
The standards (primarily SDTM) are designed to fit a single clinical trial, including a set intervention and time. Real world health care does not work this way ...
[37]
[PDF] SUPPQUAL Datasets: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly - Lex Jansen
SUPPQUAL datasets were designed to represent non-standard variables in SDTM tabulation data. There are many recent discussions about whether the SDTM Model ...Missing: fragmented | Show results with:fragmented
[38]
[PDF] Challenges and Solutions for managing changes in SDTM ...
This presentation discusses our experience, various challenges encountered and solutions taken at Shire on SDTM standards, with regards to the harmonization of ...Missing: backward compatibility
[39]
[PDF] Navigating the transition of legacy processes for SDTM creation
This paper explores key considerations for transforming Electronic Data Capture (EDC) data into. Submission Data Tabulation Model (SDTM) datasets, emphasizing ...
[40]
[PDF] Challenges of Genomic Data in Clinical Trials - Lex Jansen
This article will explore the challenges and complexities surrounding the collection, structuring, standardization, integration, data readiness and analysis of ...
[41]
[PDF] Medical Imaging Data Standards, Automation & Analysis - CDISC
Medical Imaging Data Standards. 11. • Study Data Tabulation Model (SDTM) implementation guide. • Study data regulatory submission guidelines. • Provides ...
[42]
Semantic interoperability in health records standards: a systematic ...
This study presents a comprehensive systematic literature review of semantic interoperability in electronic health records.
[43]
[PDF] AI-Powered Automation for CDISC-Compliant Datasets - Lex Jansen
This paper presents an innovative approach to automating the creation of Clinical Data Interchange Standards. Consortium (CDISC)-compliant datasets, which ...Missing: guidance | Show results with:guidance
[44]
Accelerating Medical Device Trials with Data Harmonization
Oct 29, 2025 · However, SDTM v3.0, SDTMIG v4.0, and SDTMIG-MD v2.0 are being ... The SDTMIG-MD v2.0 is anticipated to be released for Public Review in Q2-2026.
[45]
[PDF] SDTM Office Hours - CDISC
Mar 29, 2022 · Planned Changes for SDTMIG v4.0. 03.29.2022. 20. • Updating metadata tables to reflect structure of SDTM v2.0. • Adding decision trees to help ...
[46]
Digital Health Technologies | CDISC
The advantages of DHTs include the ability to collect rich high-resolution data in real-world settings outside of traditional research settings, such as clinics ...Missing: enhancements AI
[47]
IG Home Page - FHIR to CDISC Joint Mapping Implementation ...
This implementation guide, a joint effort of CDISC and HL7 defines mappings between FHIR release 4.0 and three specific CDISC standards.
[48]
FHIR to CDISC Joint Mapping Implementation Guide v1.0
Sep 1, 2021 · Version 1.0 of the FHIR to CDISC Joint Mapping Implementation Guide defines mappings between FHIR release 4.0, HL7's standard for exchanging healthcare ...<|separator|>
[49]
[PDF] CDISC Strategy and Roadmap Focus on Realizing the Long-Term ...
• Real-world data provides valuable insights but… • Concerns about. • Data quality. • Data integration issues (fidelity). • Traceability. • RWD Lineage.Missing: enhancements | Show results with:enhancements
[50]
Rare Diseases Therapeutic Area User Guide - CDISC
Dec 14, 2023 · Version 1.0 of the Rare Diseases Therapeutic Area User Guide was developed under the CDISC Standards Development Process and provides advice and examples.
[51]
How AI Streamlines SDTM Conversion in Clinical Trials - Saama
Discover how Saama's SDTM-RAG leverages AI to automate SDTM conversion in clinical trials, enhancing data quality, and reducing manual effort.
[52]
Global Standards to Expedite Learning From Medical Research Data
Apr 26, 2018 · To complement the ICH work, CDISC developed global data standards for individual patient data from clinical research studies.
[53]
CDISC 360i
White Papers: The 2024 Data Standards White Paper highlights the need to transition from static, PDF-based Study Data Reviewer's Guides (SDRGs) to ...
[54]
[PDF] Digital Data Flow (DDF) Project Public Review - CDISC
Apr 29, 2022 · Enabling traceability, automated flow of content to key clinical documents, and automation to clinical & operational systems (e.g.. EDC ...Missing: white | Show results with:white