Abstract
In the present study, we analyzed concerns of the sponsors of clinical trials regarding source document verification (SDV) procedures performed at the University of Tokyo Hospital during April 1999 and March 2001, with special focus on the differences in description between the source document and case report form (CRF). Of 132 SDV procedures (78 protocols, 496 cases), the sponsors had problematic concerns with 348 cases (70.2%) totalling 693 items, which consisted of description inconsistencies between the source documents and the CRF (41.4%), lack of description in the CRF (39.8%), and lack of description in the source documents (8.8%). The most frequently found inconsistencies between the source documents and CRF were concerning items regarding observations, laboratory examinations, and compliance, which were associated with misdescription of clinical data and/or items for evaluation in the CRF. It was also revealed that the frequent lack of description in the CRF was associated with patient history and/or complications, adverse events, and concomitant drugs and/or therapy. In contrast, the frequent lack of description in the source documents was associated with items concerning patient background, observations, and informed consent. Further, we found that submission of a report of deviation from the protocols was required for 4.0% of the claims. These results suggest the necessity of better data management during the practice of clinical trials for the purpose of maintaining the quality of clinical trials.
