SCDM CCDM - Certified Clinical Data Manager

This scenario describes asingle-blindtrial, in whichonly one party—typically thesubject—is unaware of the treatment assignment, while theinvestigator or surgeonknows which intervention is being administered.

In this case, thesurgeonreceives instructions on which stent (test or control) to use, meaning they are aware of treatment allocation. However, thesubject is blindedto which device is being implanted. This setup minimizes subject bias while maintaining procedural safety since the surgeon must know which product to use.

Double-blind (A):Neither subject nor investigator knows the treatment.

Open-label (B):Both subject and investigator know the treatment.

Cross-over (D):Each subject receives both treatments in different periods.

Thus, the correct answer isC. Single-blind, as only the participant remains blinded in this surgical device trial design.

Reference (CCDM-Verified Sources):

SCDM GCDMP, Chapter: Clinical Trial Phases and Protocols, Section 3.2 – Study Blinding and Randomization Concepts

ICH E6(R2) GCP, Section 1.10 – Definition of Blinding/Masking

FDA Guidance for Industry: Design Considerations for Pivotal Clinical Investigations for Medical Devices, Section 5.3 – Blinding in Device Studies

In aCRF-to-database quality control (QC) audit, auditors compare data recorded on the paper Case Report Form (CRF) with data entered in the electronic database. If discrepancies exist thatcannot be explained by documented data handling conventions, they are classified asaudit findings.

PerGCDMP (Chapter: Data Quality Assurance and Control),data handling conventionsdefine acceptable data entry practices, transcription rules, and allowable transformations. These conventions ensure that CRF data are consistently interpreted and entered.

If a discrepancy deviates from these established rules, it indicates a process gap or error in data entry, validation, or training. Discrepancies justified by protocol design or CRF guidelines would not constitute findings.

Therefore,option C (Discrepancy not explained by the data handling conventions)correctly identifies the criterion for a true QC audit finding.

Reference (CCDM-Verified Sources):

SCDM GCDMP, Chapter: Data Quality Assurance and Control, Section 6.1 – Data Handling Conventions and QC Auditing

ICH E6(R2) GCP, Section 5.1 – Quality Management and Documentation of Deviations

FDA Guidance for Industry: Computerized Systems Used in Clinical Investigations, Section 6.5 – Data Verification and Audit Findings

This question tests workload estimation and resource planning, which are fundamental competencies outlined in the Good Clinical Data Management Practices (GCDMP, Chapter on Project Management in Data Management). The task is to determine the Data Manager effort required based on the frequency and duration of data collection and processing activities.

Let’s calculate step by step:

Number of patients: 100

Frequency: Weekly (once per week)

Duration: 6 months ≈ 26 weeks

Time per file: 20 minutes

Total time per week:

100 patients × 20 minutes = 2,000 minutes per week

= 2,000 ÷ 60 = 33.3 hours per week

Total hours over 6 months:

33.3 hours/week × 26 weeks = 866 hours total

A full-time Data Manager typically works ~160 hours per month, so over six months:

160 × 6 = 960 hours total full-time capacity.

Therefore, the workload of 866 hours is approximately equivalent to one full-time Data Manager working across the six-month period:

866 ÷ 960 ≈ 0.9 FTE (Full-Time Equivalent).

This aligns most closely with Option D: One Data Manager per month (i.e., a full-time resource is required throughout the duration of the trial).

According to the GCDMP Project Management chapter, accurate resource estimation is critical in ensuring data management timelines are met without overloading staff or compromising data quality. The estimation process must consider not just the raw data download time but also associated data processing, verification, and upload into the clinical database.

Other options underestimate the effort significantly:

A (10%) and B (50%) do not account for cumulative weekly workload across multiple patients.

C (Two Data Managers) overestimates, as one Data Manager working full-time can manage the load efficiently.

Therefore, Option D is correct — approximately one full-time Data Manager (1.0 FTE) is required for the activity data alone during the six-month trial.

Reference (CCDM-Verified Sources):

Society for Clinical Data Management (SCDM), Good Clinical Data Management Practices (GCDMP), Chapter: Project Management in Data Management, Section 5.3 – Workload Estimation and Resource Allocation

SCDM GCDMP, Chapter: Data Handling and Processing – Effort Estimation for Repetitive Data Tasks

ICH E6 (R2) Good Clinical Practice, Section 5.1 – Quality Management and Resource Planning

FDA Guidance for Industry: Electronic Source Data in Clinical Investigations, Section 4.3 – Operational Considerations for Data Management Activities

The most effective method forquality control (QC)of the query resolution process is toperform random audits of resolved query forms. This ensures that queries are being appropriately raised, addressed, and resolved in accordance with the study protocol, data management plan (DMP), and standard operating procedures (SOPs).

According to theGCDMP (Chapter: Data Validation and Cleaning), QC activities should verify that the data review and query management process maintains high accuracy and consistency. Random auditing of resolved queries enables verification that:

Queries were raised for legitimate discrepancies,

The site’s responses were appropriate, and

The resolution actions taken by data management were correct and well-documented.

Metrics such as turnaround time (options A and C) or query counts (option B) measure efficiency butdo not assess quality. True quality control focuses on ensuring that data corrections preserve accuracy, auditability, and traceability — the fundamental principles ofdata integrityin clinical research.

Reference (CCDM-Verified Sources):

SCDM Good Clinical Data Management Practices (GCDMP), Chapter: Data Validation and Cleaning, Section 5.4 – Query Management and Quality Control

ICH E6 (R2) GCP, Section 5.5.3 – Data Integrity and Validation Procedures

The most critical consideration is thatdata cleaning is an iterative process, and completing all necessary steps — includingquery generation, site resolution, and second-pass validation— cannot realistically be accomplished within two weeks after study close.

According to theGood Clinical Data Management Practices (GCDMP, Chapter: Data Validation and Cleaning), data cleaning must occurcontinuously throughout the study, not only at the end. Post-database lock activities typically include running final validation checks, resolving outstanding queries, performing reconciliation (e.g., SAEs, labs, coding), and conducting final quality review.

Even in small studies,query turnaround and response cyclesfrom sites take time — typically2–4 weeks per iteration— making a two-week total cleaning period unrealistic.

Therefore,Option Dis correct: it would take more than two weeks to handle second-round (follow-up) queries and confirm final resolutions prior to database lock.

Reference (CCDM-Verified Sources):

SCDM Good Clinical Data Management Practices (GCDMP), Chapter: Data Validation and Cleaning, Section 5.4 – Ongoing vs. End-of-Study Data Cleaning

ICH E6 (R2) Good Clinical Practice, Section 5.5.3 – Data Quality and Timeliness

FDA Guidance for Industry: Computerized Systems Used in Clinical Investigations – Data Management and Cleaning