What do you like best?
- ease of use
- flexibility (can be adjusted to all your needs)
- interface (clear, pretty)
- data logging including audit trail implementation
- stability (never experienced downtime)
- the ability to stratify
- randomisation feature (I was totally blinded to my own study)
- service (I experienced exceptional result during randomisation of the first patients, questionning the pure randomness of the tool, the programmers dived into the randomisation tables and were able to convince me of pure randomness: in the end all turned out alright)
- my PhD-student told me also the download feature was working as she expected, she was very glad with that
What do you dislike?
- if you only have one study in the EDC, you still have to select it in step 1. Maybe, if only one study is linked to the account, Castor could automatically select that one
- not possible to have Castor being filled automatically from other sources (e.g. EPD)
- the ability to anonimise, store and retrieve DICOM (medical image) data would make it the perfect solution for my application (now using a 3rd party service that has a lot of downtime).
- a warning for overstratification could be implemented when setting-up the statrification tool
Recommendations to others considering the product:
unless automated database filling from e.g. EPD is mandatory, seriously consider this product, it fitted all my (and legislative) needs for a multicenter randomised clinical trial.
What problems are you solving with the product? What benefits have you realized?
- central reading of a 15-center multicenter trial, according to all legistlation and recommendations (DPA, GCP) within the budgettary limits of this project