Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Electronic Data Capture for Registries and Clinical Trials in Orthopaedic Surgery: Open Source versus Commercial Systems

  • Symposium: ABJS Carl T. Brighton Workshop on Health Informatics
  • Published:
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

Abstract

Background

Collection and analysis of clinical data can help orthopaedic surgeons to practice evidence based medicine. Spreadsheets and offline relational databases are prevalent, but not flexible, secure, workflow friendly and do not support the generation of standardized and interoperable data. Additionally these data collection applications usually do not follow a structured and planned approach which may result in failure to achieve the intended goal.

Questions/purposes

Our purposes are (1) to provide a brief overview of EDC systems, their types, and related pros and cons as well as to describe commonly used EDC platforms and their features; and (2) describe simple steps involved in designing a registry/clinical study in DADOS P, an open source EDC system.

Where are we now?

Electronic data capture systems aimed at addressing these issues are widely being adopted at an institutional/national/international level but are lacking at an individual level. A wide array of features, relative pros and cons and different business models cause confusion and indecision among orthopaedic surgeons interested in implementing EDC systems.

Where do we need to go?

To answer clinical questions and actively participate in clinical studies, orthopaedic surgeons should collect data in parallel to their clinical activities. Adopting a simple, user-friendly, and robust EDC system can facilitate the data collection process.

How do we get there?

Conducting a balanced evaluation of available options and comparing them with intended goals and requirements can help orthopaedic surgeons to make an informed choice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bart T. Comparison of electronic data capture with paper data collection. Business briefing: Pharmatech, 2003 Available at: http://www.dreamslab.it/doc/eclinica.pdf. Accessed: June 22, 2010.

  2. Black N. High-quality clinical databases: breaking down barriers. Lancet. 1999;353:1205–1206.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Brown EG, Holmes BJ, McAulay SE. Clinical Trials’ EDC Endgame. New York, NY: Forrester Research, Inc; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  4. CFR - Code of Federal Regulations Title 21. Available at: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?CFRPart=11. Accessed February 1, 2010.

  5. CliniProteus. Available at: http://www.rfdn.org/bioinfo/CTMS/ctms.html. Accessed February 1, 2010.

  6. Clinsys® Clinical Research. Available at: http://www.clinsys.com/. Accessed February 1, 2010.

  7. Dados Prospective, Duke University Version 2.1. Available at: https://www.ceso.duke.edu/dados2.1/servlet/Controller. Accessed February 1, 2010.

  8. DATATRAK One™. Available at: http://www.datatrak.net/products/electronic-data-capture/. Accessed June 1, 2010.

  9. De Lusignan S, van Weel C. The use of routinely collected computer data for research in primary care: opportunities and challenges. Fam Pract. 2006;23:253–263.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Entrypoint Plus®. Available at: http://www.entrypointplus.com/audit_trail.htm. Accessed February 1, 2010.

  11. eTrials EDC, Merge Healthcare, Available at: http://www.merge.com/products/etrials/trial-intelligence/index.aspx. Accessed June 1, 2010.

  12. Eugene CN, Mark ES, Paul BB, Stephen KP. Building measurement and data collection into medical practice. Ann Intern Med. 1998;128:460–466.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Fegan GW, Lang TA. Could an open-source clinical trial data-management system be what we have all been looking for? PLoS Med. 2008;5:e6–e6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. GNU General Public License. Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License. Accessed February 1, 2010.

  15. GPL 2. Available at: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html. Accessed February 1, 2010.

  16. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap) - A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42:377–381.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hashkes PJ, Uziel Y, Rubenstein M. The Israeli Internet-based registry: novel concept of multicenter data collection in pediatric rheumatology. Pediatr Rheumatol Online J. 2004;2:37–50. Available at: http://www.pedrheumonlinejournal.org/Jan-Feb/PDF/registry.pdf. Accessed June 22, 2010.

  18. Helms RW. Data quality issues in electronic data capture. Drug Inf J. 2001;35:827–837.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Herberts P, Malchau H. How outcome studies have changed total hip arthroplasty practices in Sweden. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1997;344:44–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Herberts P, Malchau H. Many years of registration have improved the quality of hip arthroplasty [in Swedish]. Läkartidningen. 1999;96:2469–2473, 2475–2476

    Google Scholar 

  21. Herberts P, Malchau H. Long-term registration has improved the quality of hip replacement: a review of the Swedish THR Register comparing 160,000 cases. Acta Orthop Scand. 2000;71:111–121.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. InFormTM Available at: http://www.phaseforward.com/products/clinical/edc/default.aspx. Accessed February 1, 2010.

  23. Keramaris NC, Kanakaris NK, Tzioupis C, Kontakis G, Giannoudis PV. Translational research: from benchside to bedside. Injury. 2008;39:643–650.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Koop A, Mösges R. The use of handheld computers in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 2002;23:469–480.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kush RD, Bleicher P, Kubick WR, Kush ST, Marks R, Raymond SA, Tardiff B. eClinical Trials: Planning and Implementation. Boston, MA: CenterWatch; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Lang M, Kirpekar N, Bürkle T, Laumann S, Prokosch HU. Results from data mining in a radiology department: the relevance of data quality. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2007;129(Pt 1):576–580.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Litchfield J, Freeman J, Schou H, Elsley M, Fuller R, Chubb B. Is the future for clinical trials internet-based? A cluster randomized clinical trial. Clin Trials (London, England). 2005;2:72–79.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Nguyen L, Shah A, Harker M, Martins H, McCready M, Menezes A, Jacobs D, Pietrobon R. DADOS-Prospective: an open source application for Web-based prospective data collection. Source Code Biol Med. 2006;1:7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Nutting PA. Practice-based research networks answer primary care questions. JAMA. 1999;281:686–688.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. OpenClinica®. Open source for clinical research. Available at: http://www.openclinica.org/. Accessed February 2010.

  31. Oracle® Clinical. Available at: http://www.oracle.com/industries/life_sciences/oracle-clinical.html. Accessed February 2010.

  32. Paterson D. The International Documentation and Evaluation System (IDES). Orthopedics. 1993;16:11–14.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Pavlović I, Kern T, Miklavčič D. Comparison of paper-based and electronic data collection process in clinical trials: costs simulation study. Contemp Clin Trials. 2009;30:300–316.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Project RedCap. Available at: http://www.project-redcap.org/videos.php. Accessed: June 22, 2010 .

  35. Prokscha S. Practical Guide to Clinical Data Management. 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2006.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  36. RAVE, Medidata solutions. Available at: http://www.mdsol.com/products/rave_overview.htm. Accessed February 1, 2010.

  37. Research on Research Group. Available at: http://researchonresearch.org/. Accessed December 12, 2009.

  38. Röder C, Eggli S, EL-Kerdi A, Müller U, Ambrose T, Röösli E, Busato A, Aebi M. The International Documentation and Evaluation System (IDES)—10-years experience. Int Orthop. 2003;27:259–261.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Röder C, El-Kerdi A, Grob D, Aebi M. A European spine registry. Eur Spine J. 2002;11:303–307.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Röder C E-Kerdi A, Frigg A, Kolling C, Staub L, Bach B. The Swiss Orthopaedic Registry. Bull Hosp Jt Dis. 2005;63:15–19.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Sujansky WV. The benefits and challenges of an electronic medical record: much more than a “word-processed” patient chart. West J Med. 1998;169:176–183.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Sussman S, Valente TW, Rohrbach LA, Skara S, Pentz MA. Translation in the health professions: converting science into action. Eval Health Prof. 2006;29:7–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Trial DB. Available at: http://ycmi.med.yale.edu/TrialDB/. Accessed February 2010.

  44. Velikova G, Wright EP, Smith AB, Cull A, Gould A, Forman D, Perren T, Stead M, Brown J, Selby PJ. Automated collection of quality-of-life data: a comparison of paper and computer touch-screen questionnaires. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:998–998.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Welker JA. Implementation of electronic data capture systems: Barriers and solutions. Contemp Clin Trials. 2007;28:329–336.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Yackel TR. How the open-source development model can improve medical software. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2001;84(Pt 1):68–72.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School, Singapore, Singapore

    Jatin Shah BAMS, PDCR, Dimple Rajgor MSc, Shreyasee Pradhan MSc & Amrapali Zaveri MSc

  2. Research on Research Group, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA

    Jatin Shah BAMS, PDCR, Dimple Rajgor MSc & Shreyasee Pradhan MSc

  3. Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Box 3094, Durham, NC, 27710, USA

    Mariana McCready BS & Ricardo Pietrobon MD, PhD, MBA

  4. National Neuroscience Institute, Singapore, Singapore

    Amrapali Zaveri MSc

Authors
  1. Jatin Shah BAMS, PDCR
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dimple Rajgor MSc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shreyasee Pradhan MSc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mariana McCready BS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Amrapali Zaveri MSc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ricardo Pietrobon MD, PhD, MBA
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ricardo Pietrobon MD, PhD, MBA.

Additional information

Each author certifies that he or she has no commercial associations (eg, consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article.

This work was performed at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA, and Duke NUS Graduate medical School, Singapore.

Electronic supplementary material

About this article

Cite this article

Shah, J., Rajgor, D., Pradhan, S. et al. Electronic Data Capture for Registries and Clinical Trials in Orthopaedic Surgery: Open Source versus Commercial Systems. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468, 2664–2671 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-010-1469-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-010-1469-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation