Monitoring the conduct of clinical trials is recommended by International Conference of Harmonisation Good Clinical Practice (ICH GCP) guidelines and is integral to trial quality assurance. On-site monitoring, that is, visiting trial sites, is one part of this process but little is known about the procedures that are performed in practice.
Purpose
To examine and summarise published on-site monitoring methods for health-care clinical trials, including evaluations of their benefits and costs to trials.
Methods
A systematic literature review identified all articles reporting the methods and practices of on-site monitoring of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Articles were categorised into (1) reports from research groups and organisations, (2) reports from individual RCTs, (3) randomised trials of on-site monitoring interventions, (4) cost simulations, or (5) surveys of trial staff and monitors. Data were extracted on the characteristics of the trials and groups reporting on-site monitoring (e.g., geographical origin, sponsor, and trial focus). Information from articles in categories (1)–(3) was summarised on the frequency and scope of site monitoring visits, monitoring team size and composition, activities during site visits, and reporting structures. Evaluations of the benefits and disadvantages of on-site monitoring were examined for all included articles.
Results
In total, 57 articles were identified, comprising 21 articles about the on-site monitoring practices of 16 research groups, 30 articles from 26 RCTs, 1 on-site monitoring intervention RCT, 2 cost simulations, and 3 surveys. Publications in categories (1)–(3), mostly originated from the United States (33/52, 63%) or Europe (15/52, 29%), were predominantly describing non-commercial organisations or trials (45/52, 87%), with heart disease (9/26, 35%) or cancer (5/26, 19%) the commonest focus of individual RCTs. The frequency of visits ranged from every 6–8 weeks up to once every 3 years, with mostly all trial sites visited. The number of monitors visiting a site varied between 1 and 8. The most common on-site monitoring activity was verifying source data and consent forms, with a focus on data accuracy. Only six articles evaluated their on-site monitoring process, with improvements observed in recruitment rates and protocol adherence but with direct costs and staff time viewed as the major disadvantages. The on-site monitoring RCT ended prematurely so preventing full assessment.
Limitations
Trialists and organisations may utilise additional unpublished on-site monitoring systems. The varied terminology used to describe monitoring may have limited identification of some relevant articles.
Conclusions
This review demonstrated that on-site monitoring is utilised in trials worldwide but systems vary considerably with little evidence to support practice. These on-site monitoring practices need to be evaluated empirically, including costs, to provide robust evidence for the contribution of site visits to trial performance and quality.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Good clinical practice: Consolidated guideline. In: International conference on harmonisation of technical requirements for registration of pharmaceuticals for human use, report no.: E6(R1), 1996.
Directive 2001/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the implementation of good clinical practice in the conduct of clinical trials on medicinal products for human use. Off J European Communities2001; L 121: 34–44.
CohenJ. Clinical trial monitoring – Hit or miss. Science1994; 264(5165): 1534–37.
6.
RamschKD. Experiences with GCP in the pharmaceutical-industry. Methods Find Exp Clin Pharmacol1993; 15(4): 237–40.
7.
KnatterudGLRockholdFWGeorgeSL. Guidelines for quality assurance in multicenter trials: A position paper. Control Clin Trials1998; 19(5): 477–93.
8.
KnatterudGL. Management and conduct of randomized controlled trials. Epidemiol Rev2002; 24(1): 12–25.
9.
BlumensteinBA. Verifying keyed medical research data. Stat Med1993; 12(17): 1535–42.
10.
GassmanJJOwenWWKuntzTEMartinJPAmorosoWP. Data quality assurance, monitoring, and reporting. Control Clin Trials1995; 16(2 Suppl.): S104–S134.
11.
CaliffRMKarnashSLWoodliefLH. Developing systems for cost-effective auditing of clinical trials. Control Clin Trials1997; 18(6): 651–60.
12.
DuleyLAntmanKArenaJ. Specific barriers to the conduct of randomized trials. Clin Trials2008; 5(1): 40–48.
13.
HearnJSullivanR. The impact of the ‘Clinical Trials’ directive on the cost and conduct of non-commercial cancer trials in the UK. Eur J Cancer2007; 43(1): 8–13.
14.
YusufSBoschJDevereauxP. Sensible guidelines for the conduct of large randomized trials (vol. 5, p. 38, 2008). Clin Trials2008; 5(3): 283.
15.
LiberatiAAltmanDGTetzlaffJ. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med2009; 6(7): e1000100.
16.
ICH guidelines. Good Clin Pract J1998; 5(5): 34–37.
17.
Central Vein Occlusion Study Group. Central vein occlusion study of photocoagulation. Manual of operations. Online J Curr Clin Trials1993; 32.
18.
AdrianzaMEMcAdamsMJTangreaJA. Centralized training, monitoring, and support of study coordinators in a multicenter clinical trial: Methods and perspectives. J Clin Res Pharmacoepidemiol1992; 6(3): 169–82.
19.
AlfaroVPratsMNadalJAlamiM. Clinical trial monitoring in Spain: Facts and perspectives. Good Clin Pract J1999; 6(2): 22–25.
20.
BergmannJFLagierGCalvoFChazelleFCaulinC. Independent quality controls in therapeutic trials. About an experience of eleven independent audits of clinical investigators performed in two European multicenter trials. Therapie1988; 43(5): 379–84.
21.
BoisselJPMeillardOPerrin-FayolleE. Example of a phase IV trial involving several GPs and aiming at answering a scientific question: EOL. Therapie1996; 51(6): 667–76.
22.
BortolussiRNicholsonD. Auditing of clinical research ethics in a children’s and women’s academic hospital. Clin Invest Med2002; 25(3): 83–88.
23.
ChangJJXuJFanD. A comparative method of evaluating quality of international clinical studies in China: Analysis of site visit reports of the Clinical Research Operations and Monitoring Center. Contemp Clin Trials2008; 29(5): 654–62.
24.
ChowPKHTaiB-CTanC-K. High-dose tamoxifen in the treatment of inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma: A multicenter randomized controlled trial. Hepatology2002; 36(5): 1221–26.
25.
DienerMKKnaebelHPWitteST. DISPACT trial: A randomized controlled trial to compare two different surgical techniques of DIStal PAnCreaTectomy – Study rationale and design. Clin Trials2008; 5(5): 534–45.
26.
EscofferyCGlanzKHallDElliottT. A multi-method process evaluation for a skin cancer prevention diffusion trial. Eval Health Prof2009; 32(2): 184–203.
27.
FukushimaM. Quality control in clinical trials. Jpn J Cancer Chemother1996; 23(2): 172–82.
28.
GohaganJKProrokPCHayesRBKramerBSProstate LCaOCSTPT. The Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial of the National Cancer Institute: History, organization, and status. Control Clin Trials2000; 21(6 Suppl.): S251–S272.
29.
KirkpatrickKJohnsonPMorganJLambS. Quality control site visits to clinics in the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial. Control Clin Trials1986; 7(3 Suppl.): S126–S136.
30.
KragDNAshikagaTHarlowSP. Surgeon training, protocol compliance, and technical outcomes from breast cancer sentinel lymph node randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst2009; 101(19): 1356–62.
31.
LienardJLQuinauxEFabre-GuillevinE. Impact of on-site initiation visits on patient recruitment and data quality in a randomized trial of adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. Clin Trials2006; 3(5): 486–92.
32.
MargiticSE. The role of the coordinating center project manager in a multicenter clinical trial. J Clin Res Drug Dev1993; 7(4): 243–52.
33.
MartinRJKephartDKDyerAM. Quality control within the Asthma Clinical Research Network. Control Clin Trials2001; 22(6 Suppl.): S207–S221.
34.
MorrisonDASethiGSacksJ. A multicenter, randomized trial of percutaneous coronary intervention versus bypass surgery in high-risk unstable angina patients. Control Clin Trials1999; 20(6): 601–19.
35.
NeatonJDGrimmRHJrCutlerJA. Recruitment of participants for the multiple risk factor intervention trial (MRFIT). Control Clin Trials1987; 8(4 Suppl.): S41–S53.
36.
PaulNPaterJL. Industry involvement in cooperative oncology group studies. Results of a survey of study nurses/institutional data managers. J Clin Res Pharmacoepidemiol1992; 6(1): 39–46.
37.
PinolABergelEChaisiriKDiazEGandehM. Managing data for a randomised controlled clinical trial: Experience from the WHO Antenatal Care Trial. WHO Antenatal Care Trial Research Group. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol1998; 12: S142–S155.
38.
PollockBH. Quality assurance for interventions in clinical trials. Multicenter data monitoring, data management, and analysis. Cancer1994; 74(9 Suppl.): S2647–S2652.
39.
RobbinsMSSzapocznikJHorigianVE. Brief strategic family therapy for adolescent drug abusers: A multi-site effectiveness study. Contemp Clin Trials2009; 30(3): 269–78.
40.
StoneEJOsganianSKMcKinlaySM. Operational design and quality control in the CATCH multicenter trial. Prev Med1996; 25(4): 384–99.
41.
VantongelenKRotmenszNVan der SchuerenE. Quality control of validity of data collected in clinical trials. EORTC Study Group on Data Management (SGDM). Eur J Cancer Clin Oncol1989; 25(8): 1241–47.
42.
VantongelenKStewardWBlackledgeGVerweijJVanOA. EORTC joint ventures in quality control: Treatment-related variables and data acquisition in chemotherapy trials. Eur J Cancer1991; 27(2): 201–07.
43.
WeissRB. Systems of protocol review, quality assurance, and data audit. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol1998; 42(Suppl.): S88–S92.
44.
WeissfeldJLFagerstromRMO’BrienBLCaOCSTPT Prostate. Quality control of cancer screening examination procedures in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial. Control Clin Trials2000; 21(6 Suppl.): S390–S399.
45.
WilliamsGW. The other side of clinical trial monitoring; assuring data quality and procedural adherence. Clin Trials2006; 3(6): 530–37.
46.
YouYNJacobsLMartinezED. Improved surgeon performance in clinical trials: An analysis of quality assurance audits from the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group. J Am Coll Surgeons2006; 203(3): 269–76.
CAPT Study Group. The Complications of Age-Related Macular Degeneration Prevention Trial (CAPT): Rationale, design and methodology. Clin Trials2004; 1(1): 91–107.
49.
CiterioGFranzosiMGLatiniR. Anaesthesiological strategies in elective craniotomy: Randomized, equivalence, open trial – The NeuroMorfeo trial. Trials2009; 10.
50.
ClearyPABeckRWAndersonMM. Conduct of the Optic Neuritis Treatment Trial. Control Clin Trials1993; 14(2): 123–42.
51.
CollinsJEMartinSKentE. The use of regional coordinating centers in large clinical trials: The DIG trial. Control Clin Trials2003; 24(6): 298S–305S.
52.
CrossmanDCMortonACGunnJP. Investigation of the effect of Interleukin-1 receptor antagonist (IL-1ra) on markers of inflammation in non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes (The MRC-ILA-HEART Study). Trials2008; 9.
53.
EisensteinELLemonsPWTardiffBE. Reducing the costs of phase III cardiovascular clinical trials. Am Heart J2005; 149(3): 482–88.
FrankECassanoGBRucciP. Addressing the challenges of a cross-national investigation: Lessons from the Pittsburgh-Pisa study of treatment-relevant phenotypes of unipolar depression. Clin Trials2008; 5(3): 253–61.
56.
GuilbertTWMorganWJKrawiecM. The prevention of early asthma in kids study: Design, rationale and methods for the childhood asthma research and education network. Control Clin Trials2004; 25(3): 286–310.
57.
KirwanBALubsenJDe BrouwerS. Quality management of a large randomized double-blind multi-centre trial: The ACTION experience. Contemp Clin Trials2008; 29(2): 259–69.
58.
MauerJKHothDFMacfarlaneDKHammershaimbLDWittesRE. Site visit monitoring program of the clinical cooperative groups – Results of the first 3 years. Cancer Treat Rep1985; 69(10): 1177–87.
O’BrienBNichamanLBrowneJEH. Coordination and management of a large multicenter screening trial: The Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial. Control Clin Trials2000; 21(6): 310S–28S.
62.
PogashRMBoehmerSJForandPE. Data management procedures in the Asthma Clinical Research Network. Control Clin Trials2001; 22(6): 168S–80S.
63.
RixenDSteinhausenESauerlandS. Protocol for a randomized controlled trial on risk adapted damage control orthopedic surgery of femur shaft fractures in multiple trauma patients. Trials2009; 10.
64.
RosaCCampbellAKleppingerC. Quality assurance of research protocols conducted in the community: The National Institute on Drug Abuse Clinical Trials Network Experience. Clin Trials2009; 6(2): 151–61.
65.
SatherMRRaischDWHaakensonCMBuckelewJMFeussnerJRPromoting good clinical practices in the conduct of clinical trials: Experiences in the Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program. Control Clin Trials2003; 24(5): 570–84.
66.
SoranANesbittLMamounasEP. Centralized medical monitoring in phase III clinical trials: The National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) experience. Clin Trials2006; 3(5): 478–85.
67.
SpillaneVByrneMCByrneM. Monitoring treatment fidelity in a randomized controlled trial of a complex intervention. J Adv Nurs2007; 60: 343–52.
68.
TaggartDPLeesBGrayA. Protocol for the Arterial Revascularisation Trial (ART). A randomised trial to compare survival following bilateral versus single internal mammary grafting in coronary revascularisation. Trials2006; 7.
69.
Van den BroeckJMackayMMpontshaneN. Maintaining data integrity in a rural clinical trial. Clin Trials2007; 4(5): 572–82.
70.
WillifordWOCollinsJFHomeyA. The role of the data coordinating center in the DIG trial. Control Clin Trials2003; 24(6): 277S–88S.
71.
ZhaoLLiangFRLiY. Improved quality monitoring of multi-center acupuncture clinical trials in China. Trials2009; 10.
72.
PrescottRJCounsellCEGillespieWJ. Factors that limit the quality, number and progress of randomised controlled trials. Health Technol Assess1999; 3(20): 1–143.
73.
WarlowC. How to do it – Organize a multicenter trial. BMJ1990; 300(6718): 180–83.
74.
BlumensteinBAJamesKELindBKMitchellHE. Functions and organization of coordinating centers for multicenter studies. Control Clin Trials1995; 16(2): S4–S29.
75.
BaigentCHarrellFEBuyseMEmbersonJRAltmanDG. Ensuring trial validity by data quality assurance and diversification of monitoring methods. Clin Trials2008; 5(1): 49–55.
76.
BakobakiJMRauchenbergerMJoffeN. The potential for central monitoring techniques to replace on-site monitoring: Findings from an international multi-centre clinical trial. Clin Trials2012; 9(2): 257–64.
77.
BrosteanuOHoubenPIhrigK. Risk analysis and risk adapted on-site monitoring in noncommercial clinical trials. Clin Trials2009; 6(6): 585–96.
JournotVPignonJPGaultierC. Validation of a risk-assessment scale and a risk-adapted monitoring plan for academic clinical research studies – The Pre-Optimon study. Contemp Clin Trials2011; 32(1): 16–24.
81.
MorrisonBWCochranCJWhiteJG. Monitoring the quality of conduct of clinical trials: A survey of current practices. Clin Trials2011; 8(3): 342–49.
82.
MitchelJTKimYJChoiJ. Evaluation of data entry errors and data changes to an electronic data capture clinical trial database. Drug Inf J2011; 45(4): 421–30.
83.
LaneJAWadeJDownL. A Peer Review Intervention for Monitoring and Evaluating sites (PRIME) that improved randomized controlled trial conduct and performance. J Clin Epidemiol2011; 64(6): 628–36.
84.
BlessingJABialySAWhitneyCWStonebrakerBLStehmanFB. Gynecologic Oncology Group quality assurance audits: Analysis and initiatives for improvement. Clin Trials2010; 7(4): 390–99.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
