Merative® Clinical Development (formerly IBM® Clinical Development) is a unified, cloud-based Clinical Data Management System designed to help reduce the cycle time to start, amend, and manage clinical studies — enabling life sciences organizations to deliver therapies and innovations faster to their patients.
N/A
Pricing
Merative Zelta
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Merative Zelta
Free Trial
No
Free/Freemium Version
No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
Yes
Entry-level Setup Fee
Optional
Additional Details
Subscription - For larger organizations and those who need a predictable budget. Most modules included without incurring additional fees. Eligible for volume discounts.
Pay per use - For organizations that need flexibility without a long term contractual commitment. Transparent a la carte pricing, no minimums. Fees start when trial goes live.
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Merative Zelta
Considered Both Products
Merative Zelta
Verified User
Director
Chose Merative Zelta
More flexibility with IBM Clinical Development, less heavy to design and offer[s] strong feature[s]. Rave is a stronger EDC system with a very interesting reporting option and a very good reputation with the users, however very heavy to manipulate from the design side.
It was easier to understand the usability of the software [ICD]. 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 …
IBM Clinical Trail offers an improvement on the above as it is considerably easier to navigate and has many more features. The side did seem faster however and could be used via an app which is useful in a busy environment. Both are around the same price bracket give or take.
IBM is as good or better than Rave. I believe that IBM has a more friendly user interface and is easier to navigate on the designer and Site side. CRF build and study build in general appears to be easier and IBM can be used for almost any kind of clinical study that Rave can …
I have used Clindex, Oracle Clinical, MediData, and MS Access for clinical trials. The product I had the most success with was Clindex but ICD was a close second. I did not select ICD as it was being used when I joined the company. I became a developer within a few months so I …
IBM Clinical Development (ICD) supersedes the Medrio EDC at any given point of time and on all evaluation criteria. Also as compared to Medidata Rave EDC, database programming is easier due to its intuitive GUI; someone with little or absolutely no knowledge of any programming …
IBM Clinical Development has an easier set-up, maintenance and modifiability. Also, there is a cost saving when using IBM CD for a study as Medidata is very expensive.
IBM Clinical Development (ICD) supersedes the Medrio EDC at any given point of time and on all evaluation criteria. Also as compared to Medidata Rave EDC, database programming is easier due to its intuitive GUI and someone with little or absolutely no knowledge of any …
IBM CD is a fast database, doesn't cause waiting during the data entry or when saving the data. This is mostly appreciated by the site staff as they have limited time and any delay is crucial for them. IBM CD has an unlimited option for edit checks that helps collect accurate …
ICD 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. ICD's value is more limited to smaller, more focused companies.
Study build process is relatively easy to learn, and there are many tools within the system to help builders throughout the process.
Outstanding support - both technical / Helpdesk (with system features and capabilities) and project management. Each organization has their own Client Success Manager, and ours is doing an excellent job.
Periodical enhancements based on the users/clients/s feedback.
Training materials are very well prepared and organized.
We cannot have multiple study accesses for a study in the studies supported by IBM clinical. 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 IBM studies, certain attributes remain running in the background even if it seems to be disabled.
We are satisfied from our experience with IBM, the close collaboration we have with the ICD team is also something we value. We plan to use ICD for a long time
IBM 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
ICD's support team is phenomenal. They are quick to answer or indicate that they need to research to provide an answer. There are some things that they cannot do which we can be annoying but we deal with it (visit windows). I have been very happy with the support team.
It was easier to understand the usability of the software [ICD]. 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.