![]() ![]() Technically, data integration does not need to be complete before either the ePRO or the EDC system goes live. The third-party vendor’s timeline for go live did not include integration of ePRO data with the EDC. If the data structure is not sound, making the data come out as needed on the back end requires a lot of extraneous programming.Ī second challenge was the integration timeline. Because the third-party’s ePRO specifications were final, the data managers and SDTM programmers could not assess whether the vendor’s data format was SDTM compliant. This led to the problem of data format compatibility. That left us, the EDC builder, no time to provide feedback regarding the specifications – just time to match our EDC forms to their ePRO forms. By the time the vendor released the specifications after several weeks of internal review, they were ready to go with their build. ![]() ![]() The standard operating procedures of the third-party vendor stipulated that the ePRO specifications be final before their release to the EDC vendor. What are the pain points of integrating other ePRO solutions with Rave? A recent project with a third-party vendor, a leader in the ePRO field, provides a case study for contrasting our experience with the Patient Cloud to that of integrating other ePRO systems with Rave.įorms in other ePRO products are built outside of the Rave EDC getting the ePRO and EDC pieces to be a cohesive data source requires integration in a secondary process. As early adopters, we experienced the growing pains of using the Patient Cloud, when we used it as an ePRO solution with Rave. PROMETRIKA was the first Medidata CRO partner accredited in the Medidata Patient Cloud® platform. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |