Central monitoring with triggered vs untriggered on‐site visits: Sites ≥ 1 major monitoring finding combined outcome
Central monitoring with triggered showed no clear difference in sites ≥ 1 major monitoring finding combined outcome compared with untriggered on‐site visits (low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Central monitoring with triggered vs untriggered on‐site visits Sites ≥ 1 major monitoring finding combined outcome · clinical trials in all fields of health care Central monitoring with triggered showed no clear difference in sites ≥ 1 major monitoring finding combined outcome compared with untriggered on‐site visits (low certainty). Monitoring strategies for clinical intervention studies (2021) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 1.92 [0.4, 9.17] | 2 studies · 105 participants | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Monitoring strategies for clinical intervention studies 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.