Using systematic data categorisation to quantify the types of data collected in clinical trials: the DataCat project

Abstract

Background: Data collection consumes a large proportion of clinical trial resources. Each data item requires time and effort for collection, processing and quality control procedures. In general, more data equals a heavier burden for trial staff and participants. It is also likely to increase costs. Knowing the types of data being collected, and in what proportion, will be helpful to ensure that limited trial resources and participant goodwill are used wisely. Aim: The aim of this study is to categorise the types of data collected across a broad range of trials and assess what proportion of collected data each category represents. Methods: We developed a standard operating procedure to categorise data into primary outcome, secondary outcome and 15 other categories. We categorised all variables collected on trial data collection forms from 18, mainly publicly funded, randomised superiority trials, including trials of an investigational medicinal product and complex interventions. Categorisation was done independently in pairs: one person having in-depth knowledge of the trial, the other independent of the trial. Disagreement was resolved through reference to the trial protocol and discussion, with the project team being consulted if necessary. Key results: Primary outcome data accounted for 5.0% (median)/11.2% (mean) of all data items collected. Secondary outcomes accounted for 39.9% (median)/42.5% (mean) of all data items. Non-outcome data such as participant identifiers and demographic data represented 32.4% (median)/36.5% (mean) of all data items collected. Conclusion: A small proportion of the data collected in our sample of 18 trials was related to the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes accounted for eight times the volume of data as the primary outcome. A substantial amount of data collection is not related to trial outcomes. Trialists should work to make sure that the data they collect are only those essential to support the health and treatment decisions of those whom the trial is designed to inform.

It is unprecedented: trial management during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond

“…Although only data that is used for outcomes should be collected, we recognise this is not always the case, with additional non-critical data commonly being collected. This has been confirmed by the recently published DataCat project which concluded that a substantial amount of data collection is not related to trial outcomes [18]. In trials that have altered their data collection processes and methods, initial feedback suggests participants have responded favourably, though in many cases it is too early to formally evaluate the impact upon participant retention.…”

Worldwide occurrence of haemoplasmas in wildlife: Insights into the patterns of infection, transmission, pathology and zoonotic potential

“…With a standardized taxonomy from our mammal supertree (Upham et al, 2019), we used the phylofactor package to partition infection status and prevalence as binomial responses in a series of GLMs (Washburne et al, 2019). We included the total number of hosts sampled in the former as weights to account for uneven sampling effort (Crowley et al, 2020), and we determined the number of significant mammal clades in both models using Holm's sequentially rejective test with a 5% family-wise error rate.…”

Monitoring advances including consent: learning from COVID-19 trials and other trials running in UKCRC registered clinical trials units during the pandemic

“…The collection of non-essential data has long been known to increase the burden on both participating sites and sponsors, and this is now starting to be quantified. Recent data from Fougerou-Leurent et al [ 14 ] suggest that only 13% of the data collected are critical data items and Crowley et al [ 15 ] found 5% of items were for the primary outcome of the trial.…”