Skip to content

CRIO Reduces FDA Audit Risk by Over 70%

The FDA routinely audits clinical research sites, and some of those sites happened to use CRIO eSource on the studies in question. With our broad reach and history as the leading site-adopted eSource solution, we have now established a database of audit results that prove what we’ve known intuitively: CRIO eSource reduces audit risks for sites – by over 70%, to be precise.

Measuring audit risk

To measure audit risk, in November, 2022, we reviewed all FDA inspections from 2021 and 2022 year-to-date from the FDA’s publicly posted database of inspection results for clinical research investigators. Of the 394 inspections, 112 had a result of either “VAI” (Voluntary Action Indicated) or “OAI” (Official Action Indicated) vs. “NAI” (No Action Indicated). Thus, 112 of 394, or 28%, had an indication of action.

To evaluate audit risk for CRIO sites, first, we reviewed this list to identify any named investigators within the CRIO database. Then, we contacted those investigators to confirm whether they were using CRIO eSource on the study that was the subject of inspection. Next, we combined these results with our own internal tracker of FDA audits that our client sites have informed us about (many of our sites seek our support on 21CFR11 questions prior to an audit).

The results

Out of 12 FDA audits conducted at CRIO sites, 1 was VAI/OAI or 8%¹.

This 8% result is 70% lower than the 28% overall finding rate among the general database². The result is large and consistent with other data points we have observed, such as the 38% reduction in protocol deviations experienced by a leading site network that is already known for quality.

While we cannot disclose all of our clients’ individual experiences, anecdotal evidence suggests that auditors view eSource data collection extremely favorably. It provides assurance that sites are building in quality upfront, and creates an audit trail that ensures data integrity. Most importantly, it reduces protocol deviations and has built-in workflows to enhance PI oversight. For a CRIO site owner’s recent FDA audit experience, see this article.



¹The one audit with findings had nothing to do with the use of CRIO as a 21CFR11 compliant electronic source system.

²P=.09 vs. null hypothesis that CRIO sites have same rate of findings as general population

CRIO favicon by Team CRIO
Share this post
You may also find interesting
Explore our Blog
Progress notes are vital to source data Running a Study

Progress Notes are Vital to Source Data

Progress notes are free-text entries by the investigator, coordinator or study team member that are inserted into the source record. Generally, these play a critical and highly undervalued role in the study process. Progress notes are often used to: Clarify or confirm any data points that may appear as outliers, even before a query is...

Hand of businessman using smart phone with coin icon, technology, clinical trials operations Running a Study

Sponsors, Funding is Tight – Be Smart with Your Money

Getting a new product to market is expensive. There are a variety of studies and research that point to a wide array of costs, but generally speaking, it costs nearly $3 billion dollars to bring a new drug to market. Yes, you read that correctly. Beyond this, the success rate of a new compound to...

DCT Draft Guidance explained Running a Study

The FDA’s Decentralized Clinical Trials Draft Guidance Explained

The highly anticipated Decentralized Clinical Trials (DCT) draft guidance from the FDA was finally released on 02-May-2023. In this 19-page document, the FDA outlines its current thinking around the concept of DCTs. From the outset of the draft guidance, the FDA makes a clear point on what DCTs can mean for patients and the patient...