↓ Skip to main content

PLOS

Comparison of Electronic Data Capture (EDC) with the Standard Data Capture Method for Clinical Trial Data

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, September 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
6 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Readers on

mendeley
190 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Comparison of Electronic Data Capture (EDC) with the Standard Data Capture Method for Clinical Trial Data
Published in
PLOS ONE, September 2011
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0025348
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brigitte Walther, Safayet Hossin, John Townend, Neil Abernethy, David Parker, David Jeffries

Abstract

Traditionally, clinical research studies rely on collecting data with case report forms, which are subsequently entered into a database to create electronic records. Although well established, this method is time-consuming and error-prone. This study compares four electronic data capture (EDC) methods with the conventional approach with respect to duration of data capture and accuracy. It was performed in a West African setting, where clinical trials involve data collection from urban, rural and often remote locations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 190 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 2%
Belgium 2 1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 179 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 47 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 15%
Student > Master 28 15%
Student > Postgraduate 17 9%
Student > Bachelor 12 6%
Other 31 16%
Unknown 26 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 58 31%
Computer Science 21 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 8%
Social Sciences 11 6%
Psychology 9 5%
Other 47 25%
Unknown 28 15%