Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 8720015

Format-independent data collection forms.

Abstract

Good form design is generally acknowledged to be a key element of clinical trials and follow-up studies. Although some data are collected directly from automated equipment, most measurements, examination findings, and interview responses require at least one manual transcription, either onto paper forms or directly into a computer. Regardless of the transcription method adopted, there is broad agreement that the quality of study data depends strongly on the format and layout of the data collection instruments. The task of form design and production is complicated by two facts: first, a series of different forms is needed even when the period of follow-up is short; and second, form design is an ongoing process that starts before the first person is enrolled and continues over the course of the trial. This paper (1) presents a concept (format independence) aimed at simplifying the design and revision of data collection forms; (2) explains how a feature (styles) present in most word processing software can be used to implement the concept; (3) discusses the advantages and disadvantages of a format-independent approach as compared to more traditional form development tools; and (4) describes the environment that prompted this approach to form development.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

S W Singer, C L Meinert. 1995. Format-independent data collection forms.. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0197-2456(95)00016-x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Comparing results of large clinical trials to those of meta-analyses.

We consider methods for assessing agreement or disagreement between the results of a meta-analysis of small studies addressing a clinical question and the result of a large clinical trial (LCT) addressing the same clinical question. We recommend basing conclusions about agreement upon the difference between the two results (relative risk, log-odds ratio or similar summary statistic), in the light of the estimated standard error of that difference. To estimate the standard error of the meta-analytic result we recommend a random effects analysis, and where a between-studies variance component is found, that component of variance should be used twice: once in the estimated standard error for the meta-analytic result and again in the standard error of the LCT result (augmenting the internal standard error of that statistic). Such broadening of the standard error reduces the appearance of disagreement. We also offer a critique of a different published approach, which is based on consistency of findings of statistical significance, a matter of how the two results regard zero, which is a poor measure of how closely they agree with each other.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗