CTMS Market Dynamics and Service Provider Benchmarking (2nd Edition)

Description

It’s no secret that technology is continuously becoming more ingrained in clinical trial planning and execution. Use of Clinical Trial Management Systems (CTMS) is a prime example. These systems allow sponsors to stay on top of their clinical trials by providing access to trial documents and data, project timelines, patient information, reports, and more in one centralized system. They’re also able to integrate with various other clinical technologies to better facilitate trial management activities. As technology use in clinical development continues to evolve, ISR aims to help readers stay current on happenings within the CTMS space. We surveyed 110 qualified CTMS decision-makers regarding their insights on topics such as CTMS selection drivers, outsourcing trends, use, and perceptions of providers. Respondents also shared general improvements they would like to see in the next generation of CTMS software and conveyed provider-specific advantages and improvement suggestions for their preferred system. Furthermore, recent users of 25 CTMS softwares rated how well performance stacked up against their expectations on 26 attributes across four categories (Capabilities, Data/Documentation Features, User-friendliness, and Scalability).

CTMS Market Dynamics

Sponsors:

  • Learn which CTMS providers are being most utilized by their peers.
  • Understand which CTMS applications are being integrated most often with various EDC, eCOA/ePRO, eTMF, and IRT systems that may already be in place.
  • Forecast what to expect in terms of outsourcing CTMS services and use of preferred providers.
  • Benchmark CTMS vendor performance based on data from current and recent users.

CTMS Service Providers:

  • Understand the importance sponsors place on various attributes when selecting a CTMS product.
  • Benchmark 25 different CTMS service providers (including in-house systems) across 26 attributes based on user experience, which allows providers to gauge their own performance against expectations as well as that of other providers.
  • Gain insight into the integration capabilities of providers’ respective systems by understanding which CTMS softwares are being integrated with which EDC, eCOA/ePRO, eTMF, and IRT systems.
  • Read verbatim responses to understand why respondents prefer specific softwares and what improvements they would like to see in future versions of CTMS.

EDC, eCOA/ePRO, eTMF, and IRT Providers:

  • Learn which EDC, eCOA/ePRO, eTMF, and IRT systems are most often integrated with specific CTMS systems.
  • CTMS Vendor Selection
  • Outsourcing Trends
  • CTMS Vendor Perceptions
  • CTMS Vendor Performance
  • Study Data

ISR understands that you’re looking for confidence in your market research. With ISR, you’ll consistently receive

  • Focused Domain Expertise — We’ve operated in pharmaceuticals for over 15 years and because it’s our sole focus, our domain expertise brings value to the work that “generalist” researchers can’t deliver.
  • Genuine Research Expertise — Our market research experience has developed over 20 years in many dynamic industries.  We capture appropriate sample sizes, given the research objectives, and we use appropriately sophisticated statistics to uncover everything that’s real and to give you confidence in your decisions. Read our Six Questions to Ask About Your Market Research to learn more about why our industry expertise sets us apart.
  • Transparency — If you’re like many, you’ve been disappointed more than once by research providers who fail to live up to their promises, providing you with their “professional judgment” in place of sound data; and suspect contacts instead of real decision-makers. We deliver the beliefs, attitudes, and intentions of people who matter – and we’ll prove it by showing you the titles of your respondents.

For additional questions about any of ISR’s reports or custom research services, please contact us at info@ISRreports.com.

CTMS Vendor Selection

Primary Section Takeaways
Most Important Selection Criteria
Attributes Growing in Importance
Preferred Provider Agreements

Outsourcing Trends

Primary Section Takeaways
CTMS Use by Function
In-house vs. Outsourced CTMS Use
Desired CTMS Improvements

CTMS Vendor Perceptions

Primary Section Takeaways
CTMS Vendor Leaders
CTMS Vendor Usage
CTMS Vendor Preference
CTMS Vendor Preference Among Users
Reasons for CTMS Vendor Preference
Improvement Suggestions for Preferred Vendor

CTMS Vendor Performance

Primary Section Takeaways
Capabilities (Figure 1)
Data/Documentation Features (Figure 2)
User-friendliness (Figure 3)
Scalability (Figure 4)
A Note on Harvey Ball Calculations
Figure 1 – Capabilities
Figure 2 – Data/Documentation Features
Figure 3 – User-friendliness
Figure 4 – Scalability

Study Data

Vendor Familiarity
CTMS Vendor Leaders
CTMS Vendor Usage
CTMS Vendor Preference
Reasons for CTMS Vendor Preference
Reasons for CTMS Vendor Preference – by Vendor
Improvement Suggestions for Preferred Vendor
Improvement Suggestions for Preferred Vendor – by Vendor
Selection Criteria
Attributes Growing in Importance
Company CTMS Use by Function
Personal CTMS Use by Function
In-house vs. Outsourced CTMS Use
Preferred Provider Agreements
Number of CTMS Preferred Providers
Percent of CTMS Work Awarded to Preferred Providers
Desired CTMS Improvements
Verbatim Responses: Desired CTMS Improvements
Importance of Technology vs. Professional Implementation/ Customization

Vendor Attribute Performance and Integration Capabilities

In-House Developed CTMS System
ArisGlobal
Bioclinica
Bio-Optronics
Business Systems Integration AG
Chiltern
ClinPlus
Clintrial Works
Covance
Databean
DATATRAK
DSG
eResearch Technology (ERT)
Forte Research Systems
IBM-Merge Healthcare
Integrated Clinical Solutions
Medidata Solutions
MedNet Solutions
Oracle/ Siebel
PAREXEL Informatics (Impact)
Prelude Dynamics
Target Health
Trial By Fire Solutions
Veeva
Velos
Performance Across CTMS Vendors

Demographics

Company Type
Office Location
Job Title
Therapeutic Area Responsibility
Decision-making Responsibility
Technology Familiarity
Clinical Trial Experience by Phase
Current Clinical Trial Involvement
Clinical Trial Involvement – Past 12 months
Age

Additional information

License

, ,