Talk:Case report form

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Medicine (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is part of a series of articles trying to provide additional information on several aspects of clinical development (trying to fill some gaps)


I think the name of this article should be "Case Record Form" and not _report_. / 15:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC) Case Report Form and Case Record Form is the same thing and share the abbreviation CRF both terms are used in clinical trials. --Davidstaffan 20:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard it referred to as such. Working at a CRO everyone referred to it as "Case Report Form". Do you perchance have any sources for the usage of the term "Case Record Form"? --Xris0 04:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Is "Case Record Form" the European term?Sofia Roberts 04:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Annotated CRF[edit]

For electronic submissions, the FDA expects "Annotated CRFs". Does anyone knows, where the official (legally binding) definition of this term can be found? It would be nice to have this as a separte section here. 16:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Further define the term 'sponsor'[edit]

Depending on the circumstances, even people doing clinical trial uses different definitions of the term 'Sponsor'.

From experience, sponsor can mean (1) The body who fund the study, e.g., National Institute of Health (UK) or Medical Research Council (UK), or (2) The authority under whose auspice the research is being carried out or the authority that has the responsibility of monitoring the trials, e.g. local NHS Trust in UK or (3) The research entity who wanted to run the trial and use its result, or (4) research entity or their contractors who actually carrying out the trials.

In the article, I believe the contributors mean a combination of (3) and (4). However, it could had easily meant (1) or (2) as they might want the data sent after the trial is completed.

Normally, the person(s) specifying the content of the CRF is different from the person(s) doing the actual trial (recruitments, data collection and data validation). It will help the article if the roles are more clearly defined in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Out-of-date link under 'External Links'[edit]

The hyperlink to the SOP on developing a CRF, i.e. the third hyperlink ( , does not work. The error says the domain cannot be found. This seems more than a temporary issue, since the domain is for CABIG, which seems to be a defunct organisation - see . I think it'd be better if somebody more knowledgeable in this field than me could please provide an appropriate replacement, or make a decision on whether to simply remove the link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulineDataWard (talkcontribs) 13:55, 7 May 2016 (UTC)