Advarra OnCore vs. Zelta

Advarra is well suited for monitoring the progress of the clinical trials for a research organization. It's biggest advantage is the fact that the participants details and accrual monitoring shows the progress of the clinical trial. OnCore provides the capability of creating and using study calendars and especially monitoring and tracking participants visits. OnCore may be less appropriate to use in regards to grants and funds tracking.

Incentivized

Zelta is a good tool for companies currently utilizing multiple software platforms to create and monitor clinical trial information. Due to the price, it is best suited for large pharmaceutical manufacturers with active pipelines and high R&D spend. Zelta's value is more limited to smaller, more focused companies.

Incentivized

• It is highly customizable and easy to program.
• There is a wide variety of data that can be collected from IRB/site information to clinical data.
• Zelta provides comprehensive edit language to program for accurate results.
• Page dynamics are very useful when including or hiding certain data questions.

Incentivized

• We cannot have multiple study accesses for a study in the studies supported by Zelta. eg. Coder and Data manager.
• Though all the study-build related errors are flagged on the study-build page, some errors like incorrect dynamics applied, which eventually affects the subject PDF extraction, reports, etc.
• When the study is imported from another Zelta studies, certain attributes remain running in the background even if it seems to be disabled.

Incentivized

We are satisfied from our experience with Zelta by Merative, the close collaboration we have with the Zelta team is also something we value. We plan to use Zelta for a long time

Incentivized

Zelta has many different functionalities as well as modules that can be used depending on what the sponsor wants. I like that they are optional so that when building a study, you can give the sponsor options if they want them or not. Many of the optional models I like to use (Training Tracking for example) as they make tracking Site training so much easier than sending training forms out.

Incentivized

available when needed

Incentivized

some audit reports are difficult to download and take time subject pdf also takes some time to download

Incentivized

Our organization has been using both Zelta and in-house applications. The main considerations on which one to use for a particular study is time to get the databases running, cost, and ease of use. For some studies, the time and cost of using Zelta are negative factors, and an in-house system is selected.

very efficient self training

Incentivized

again not sure about it, I wasn't part of our organization yet

Incentivized

I have not used nor evaluated any other products similar to Advarra OnCore. Did not participate in the selection process.

Incentivized

It was easier to understand the usability of the software [Zelta]. For our engineers [it] was easier to migrate our data, and fully set up everything. We found out that comparing other software[s], this one is safe, easy to use, has more functionalities, [and it's] easier to work with team members everywhere making clinical trials more efficient.

Incentivized

• Time savings regarding how long it takes to make an EDC Live.
• Reduced EDC Go Live time by at least half (from 60 days to 30).
• Was able to take an EDC live in 14 days on a few occasions.
• Seamless RTSM IRT integration without adding time to Go Live.

Incentivized