IBM Clinical Development (ICD): A Very, Good Data Collection Tool
April 30, 2021

IBM Clinical Development (ICD): A Very, Good Data Collection Tool

Anonymous | TrustRadius Reviewer
Score 8 out of 10
Vetted Review
Verified User

Overall Satisfaction with IBM Clinical Development (ICD)

We use IBM Clinical Development in our clinical department collecting data for all of our studies. It is a useful tool in collecting data from around the world.
  • 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.
  • ICD provides comprehensive edit language to program for accurate results.
  • Page dynamics are very useful when including or hiding certain data questions.
  • Reporting is very clunky and most often needs to be programmed by IBM itself. Getting Excel listings isn't user friendly for all employees.
  • The date functions are limited when setting up visit windows.
  • The User Manual gets to be a bit confusing in areas. It would benefit using direct examples when explaining programming.
  • Having the ability to attach documents (i.e., IRB approval in the Site Documents section) would be beneficial instead of getting a separate CTMS.
  • The audit trail report is non-functional for us. There is too much data for it to handle.
  • We will be saving money using the subscription based pricing instead of per unit costs.
  • We have save a lot of money using the EAM module for our adverse event reporting. Our coordinator loves using ICD to keep track of adjudications.
  • With the lack of a comprehensive CTMS portion, we spend a lot of time and money tracking the regulatory documents required for the study.
  • Our inability to track payments within ICD caused several duplicate payments that we're having to request a refunds.
  • It takes us longer to manually get reports together for the various agencies we're required to report to.
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 was happy it was, for the most part, so user friendly.
ICD is a very good tool for collecting data. It's easy to use and easy to program for basic items. It is difficult to get specific reporting accurately, collecting regulatory documentation, and tracking payments. The company is good about implementing changes requested by the users but be aware that those changes could come with extra costs.
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.

Do you think Merative Clinical Development delivers good value for the price?


Are you happy with Merative Clinical Development's feature set?


Did Merative Clinical Development live up to sales and marketing promises?

I wasn't involved with the selection/purchase process

Did implementation of Merative Clinical Development go as expected?

I wasn't involved with the implementation phase

Would you buy Merative Clinical Development again?


ICD is a good tool for collecting data but you have to have other programs to analyze that data. Payments are difficult to track and reporting is mostly non-existent. As a data specialist, I know how to 'see' the data but I have to filter [and] sort the Excel sheet quite a bit in order to pass it on to those requesting the data. Our FDA reports go through a third-party to format correctly and we still need to validate their tables which takes much longer than it should.

This is the first system I've used for electronic data capture and overall it is functional. There are items I wish I had better control over (visit windows, payments, reporting), but ICD is easy to use and easy to program for basic collection. I'm fairly sure I could spend more time on the nuances of the system but there's simply no time when involved in a large subject study.