Zelta vs. REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture)

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

REDCap surveys are very suitable for clinical trials and public health surveys. It's less appropriate for market researches .

• 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

• Customization. I can use HTML to change format but there are also a ton of built in functionality for branching logic, matrix configuration, slider scales, etc.
• Security. HIPPA compliance is extremely important for medical research and REDCap ensures our data is safe.
• Variety of use. Being able to send both surveys and create forms for internal use makes the use cases numerous.

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

• I don't really see many issues with REDCap.

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

It is very interesting to me especially that it meets all my needs. The libraries makes the job even much easier, since you can just make a few adjustments to the appropriate template chosen

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.

They respond almost immediately to queries

very efficient self training

Incentivized

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

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

SurveyMonkey and Google Forms have similar features for surveys but they lack the form options and user interface. They are also not HIPPA compliant so we are not able to collect any identifying information which is usually an issue in research when we are tracking participants. Many institutional review boards won't even approve a study without a HIPPA compliant data collection service.

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

• REDCap allowed us to house all patient information in one single portal which helped us eliminate the need for paper copies. We moved our whole filing system to an electronic version when we became "live" on REDCap. It is also very convenient and accessible to have all of this data in one location.
• A very positive impact is the ability for multiple users to see the same health and wellness information for each specific patient. Instead of constantly having to go back and forth via email, phone, etc. to ask about the patient; we could simply look up their information in REDCap and find all of the answers. It made our business much more efficient and made the patients feel as though we did our research prior to meeting with them.

Incentivized