4.1 Review

Risk based monitoring (RBM) tools for clinical trials: A systematic review

Journal

CONTEMPORARY CLINICAL TRIALS
Volume 51, Issue -, Pages 15-27

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2016.09.003

Keywords

Clinical trial; Risk based monitoring

Funding

  1. MRC [G0901530] Funding Source: UKRI
  2. Medical Research Council [G0901530] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: In November 2016, the Integrated Addendum to ICH-GCP E6 (R2) will advise trial sponsors to develop a risk-based approach to clinical trial monitoring. This new process is commonly known as risk based monitoring (RBM). To date, a variety of tools have been developed to guide RBM. However, a gold standard approach does not exist. This review aims to identify and examine RBM tools. Methods: Review of published and grey literature using a detailed search-strategy and cross-checking of reference lists. This review included academic and commercial instruments that met the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) classification of RBM tools. Results: Ninety-one potential RBM tools were identified and 24 were eligible for inclusion. These tools were published between 2000 and 2015. Eight tools were paper based or electronic questionnaires and 16 operated as Service as a System (SaaS). Risk associated with the investigational medicinal product (IMP), phase of the clinical trial and study population were examined by all tools and suitable mitigation guidance through on-site and centralised monitoring was provided. Conclusion: RBM tools for clinical trials are relatively new, their features and use varies widely and they continue to evolve. This makes it difficult to identify the best RBM technique or tool. For example, equivalence testing is required to determine if RBM strategies directed by paper based and SaaS based RBM tools are comparable. Such research could be embedded within multi-centre clinical trials and conducted as a SWAT (Study within a Trial). (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available