Overall Satisfaction with IBM Clinical Development (ICD)
ICD is being used specifically by our Data Management Department here at Veristat. We design CRFs and studies per the sponsor's request/specification for their clinical trials so that study coordinators can enter the data into the system. We use it to track subjects, analyze data, prepare reports, and send SAS extracts to sponsors so they can present results to their regulatory agencies.
- Friendly user interface.
- Ability to code complex queries and visit rules.
- Intuitive.
- Missing ability to batch add dynamics to a page.
- Better organization of visit rules if you have a lot.
- Many changes require mid study updates
- Definite time savings.
- Cost savings (Being able to copy pages into a new study).
- Easy for CRAs and other site personnel to train on.
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 be used for.
Do you think Merative Clinical Development delivers good value for the price?
Yes
Are you happy with Merative Clinical Development's feature set?
Yes
Did Merative Clinical Development live up to sales and marketing promises?
Yes
Did implementation of Merative Clinical Development go as expected?
Yes
Would you buy Merative Clinical Development again?
Yes