CCDM Exam Dumps - SCDM Clinical Data Management Questions and Answers

Theinner joinoperation retrievesonly the records that exist in both tables, which is theintersectionof two datasets.

In clinical data management, relational databases often store related data in multiple tables—for example, demographic data in one table and lab results in another. When a Data Manager needs to extract records that exist in both (e.g., subjects appearing in both demographics and labs), aninner joinis used.

According to theGCDMP (Chapter: Database Design and Build), joins are fundamental relational operations ensuring data consistency and integrity across multiple data domains.

Inner join:Returns matching records from both tables (intersection).

Left/right outer joins:Return all records from one table and matching records from the other (preserving nonmatches).

Full outer join:Returns all records from both tables, whether matched or not.

Therefore, to select only the50 records commonto both tables, the correct operation is aninner join.

Reference (CCDM-Verified Sources):

SCDM Good Clinical Data Management Practices (GCDMP), Chapter: Database Design and Build, Section 4.3 – Relational Database Concepts and Joins

ICH E6 (R2) Good Clinical Practice, Section 5.5.3 – Data Processing and Validation

The most effective information for addressinga backlog of unresolved queriesat investigative sites is alist of late queries by site combined with a summary table.

According to theGCDMP (Chapter: Communication and Issue Escalation), timely and structured feedback to sites is critical for efficient query resolution. A detailed list oflate or overdue queries, accompanied by summary statistics (e.g., counts, durations, status), enables data managers and monitors to prioritize follow-up actions, target problem areas, and provide focused support or retraining to underperforming sites.

While query count summaries (option B) are helpful for overview metrics, they lack the specific information (query ID, date, field, status) required for targeted follow-up. Graphs of enrollment or clean cases (options A and C) are unrelated to discrepancy resolution performance.

Thus, the combination ofdetailed lists and summarized performance metricsoffers both granularity and a high-level overview — the optimal tool for query management communication.

Reference (CCDM-Verified Sources):

SCDM Good Clinical Data Management Practices (GCDMP), Chapter: Communication and Issue Escalation, Section 5.1 – Site Query Management Reports

ICH E6 (R2) GCP, Section 5.18.4 – Communication Between Monitors and Sites

FDA Guidance for Industry: Oversight of Clinical Investigations – Risk-Based Monitoring, Section on Query Metrics and Site Performance Review

Even when allrangeandlogic checksare successfully resolved, discrepancies may still exist between theclinical databaseand thesource documents. This typically indicates anerror in data abstraction or transcription, meaning that data were incorrectly entered or extracted from the source records during the data entry or verification process.

According to theGood Clinical Data Management Practices (GCDMP, Chapter on Data Validation and Cleaning),data validation rulessuch as range and logic checks are designed to identify inconsistencies, missing data, or out-of-range valueswithin the databaseitself. However, they donot verify the accuracy of data entry against the original source documents— that responsibility falls undersource data verification (SDV), typically conducted by clinical monitors or auditors.

When an auditor detects discrepancies between source and database values after all edit checks have passed, the most probable explanation is thatdata were not transcribed correctly from the source, rather than a failure in programmed edit checks. This could occur due to human error during manual data entry, misinterpretation of the source document, or oversight during SDV.

OptionC (Data were changed after checks were run)might occur in rare cases but would normally be documented in an audit trail per21 CFR Part 11andICH E6 (R2)standards. OptionBmisinterprets the issue, since “logical and in range” values can still be incorrect relative to the source. OptionA (Auditor error)is possible but statistically less likely, as source data verification follows strict, documented audit procedures.

Therefore, themost likely reasonfor such discrepancies isOption D: Data were not abstracted correctly from the source, emphasizing the importance of robust data entry training, dual data entry, and verification procedures.

Reference (CCDM-Verified Sources):

Society for Clinical Data Management (SCDM), Good Clinical Data Management Practices (GCDMP), Chapter: Data Validation and Cleaning, Section 6.5 – Source Data Verification and Reconciliation

ICH E6 (R2) Good Clinical Practice, Section 5.18 – Monitoring and Source Data Verification

FDA Guidance for Industry: Computerized Systems Used in Clinical Investigations, Section 6 – Source Data Accuracy and Audit Trails

21 CFR Part 11 – Electronic Records and Electronic Signatures, Subpart B: Audit Trails and Record Accuracy

Duringdata reconciliationbetween a central laboratory and CRF data, the source of truth is typically thecentral lab database, as it provides directly measured, vendor-generated results.

When thecentral lab has data but the CRF does not (option C), the Data Manager must first query thecentral labto confirm that the result was transmitted correctly, since discrepancies may stem from data processing or timing issues. Once confirmed, a secondary query may be issued to the site to ensure CRF completion and alignment.

Conversely, if the CRF contains data but the central lab is missing results (option B), the issue is site-level, not vendor-level.

According to theGCDMP (Chapter: External Data Transfers and Reconciliation),priority for querying depends on the authoritative source— for lab data, thecentral labis considered the source of record.

Therefore,option Cis correct.

Reference (CCDM-Verified Sources):

SCDM GCDMP, Chapter: External Data Transfers and Reconciliation, Section 6.1 – Reconciliation of Central Lab and CRF Data

ICH E6(R2) GCP, Section 5.5.3 – Source Data Verification and Vendor Reconciliation

FDA Guidance for Industry: Computerized Systems Used in Clinical Investigations, Section 6.4 – Data Reconciliation and Traceability

Assuming the data transfer, integration, and validation processes are properly controlled and compliant,electronic acquisitionof clinical data from medical devices is preferred because it allowsmore frequent and accurate data collection, leading to higher data resolution and integrity.

Per theGCDMP (Chapter: Technology and Data Integration), automated data collection minimizes manual transcription and reduces latency in data capture, ensuring both efficiency and completeness. While manual processes introduce human transcription errors and limit frequency, continuous electronic data capture can record thousands of accurate, time-stamped measurements, improving the study’s analytical power.

However,option Dslightly overstates the case — human error isreduced, not entirely eliminated, since setup, calibration, and integration still involve human oversight. Therefore,option Cis the best and most precise response, emphasizing the advantage of more robust and complete data capture.

Reference (CCDM-Verified Sources):

SCDM GCDMP, Chapter: Technology and Data Integration, Section 5.4 – Automated Data Acquisition and Validation

ICH E6(R2) GCP, Section 5.5.3 – Validation of Computerized Systems and Electronic Data Sources

FDA Guidance for Industry: Computerized Systems Used in Clinical Investigations, Section 6.3 – Direct Data Capture from Instruments and Devices

In aCRF-to-database quality control (QC) audit, auditors compare data recorded on the paper Case Report Form (CRF) with data entered in the electronic database. If discrepancies exist thatcannot be explained by documented data handling conventions, they are classified asaudit findings.

PerGCDMP (Chapter: Data Quality Assurance and Control),data handling conventionsdefine acceptable data entry practices, transcription rules, and allowable transformations. These conventions ensure that CRF data are consistently interpreted and entered.

If a discrepancy deviates from these established rules, it indicates a process gap or error in data entry, validation, or training. Discrepancies justified by protocol design or CRF guidelines would not constitute findings.

Therefore,option C (Discrepancy not explained by the data handling conventions)correctly identifies the criterion for a true QC audit finding.

Reference (CCDM-Verified Sources):

SCDM GCDMP, Chapter: Data Quality Assurance and Control, Section 6.1 – Data Handling Conventions and QC Auditing

ICH E6(R2) GCP, Section 5.1 – Quality Management and Documentation of Deviations

FDA Guidance for Industry: Computerized Systems Used in Clinical Investigations, Section 6.5 – Data Verification and Audit Findings

Safety datacollected during a clinical trial are used primarily to supportproduct labeling, ensuring accurate communication of a drug’srisks, contraindications, and adverse reactionsto healthcare providers and patients.

According to theGCDMP (Chapter: Safety Data Handling and Reconciliation)andICH E2A/E2Fguidelines, alladverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), and laboratory abnormalitiesare analyzed and summarized to define the safety profile of an investigational product. These data form the basis for regulatory submissions such as theClinical Study Report (CSR)andproduct labeling (e.g., prescribing information), as required by theFDAand other regulatory authorities.

While safety data may contribute indirectly to analyses such as survival curves (option A) or quality of life metrics (option D), theirprimary regulatory functionis to informproduct labelingand post-marketing surveillance documentation.

Reference (CCDM-Verified Sources):

SCDM Good Clinical Data Management Practices (GCDMP), Chapter: Safety Data Handling and Reconciliation, Section 4.3 – Use of Safety Data in Regulatory Submissions

ICH E2A – Clinical Safety Data Management: Definitions and Standards for Expedited Reporting

FDA Guidance for Industry: Adverse Event Reporting and Labeling Requirements

In studies where themedical record serves as the source document, theElectronic Data Capture (EDC)system users (typically study coordinators or site personnel) must have appropriatetraining on how to access and log into the medical record system. This competency ensures that data abstracted from the electronic medical record (EMR) are complete, accurate, and verifiable in compliance with Good Clinical Practice (GCP) andGood Clinical Data Management Practices (GCDMP).

According to theGCDMP (Chapter: EDC Systems and Data Capture)andICH E6(R2), all personnel involved in data entry and verification must be trained in both the EDC and the primary source systems (e.g., EMR). This ensures that the integrity of data flow—from source to EDC—is maintained, and that personnel understand system access controls, audit trails, and proper documentation of source verification.

Whileresolving discrepant data (C)andscreening subjects (A)are part of study operations, thecompetency directly related to EDC system use in EMR-based studiesis the ability to properly log into and navigate the medical records system to extract source data.

Reference (CCDM-Verified Sources):

SCDM GCDMP, Chapter: Electronic Data Capture (EDC), Section 5.1 – Source Data and System Access Requirements

ICH E6(R2) Good Clinical Practice, Section 4.9 – Source Documents and Data Handling

FDA Guidance: Use of Electronic Health Record Data in Clinical Investigations, Section 3 – Investigator Responsibilities

When a system validation test fails duringElectronic Patient-Reported Outcome (ePRO)system testing, thevalidation documentationmust record theexpected results(what should have occurred) and theactual results(what occurred).

According to theGCDMP (Chapter: Database Validation and Testing), proper system validation documentation ensurestraceability, reproducibility, and compliancewithFDA 21 CFR Part 11andICH E6 (R2). Each test case must include:

Test objective,

Preconditions,

Test steps,

Expected results,

Actual results, and

Pass/fail status.

If a test fails, this documentation provides the objective evidence necessary for deviation handling, issue resolution, and re-testing. While a separateroot cause analysismay be performed later (option D), the validation record itself must focus on verifying outcomes against predefined expectations.

Therefore, the correct answer isB – Expected and actual results.

Reference (CCDM-Verified Sources):

SCDM Good Clinical Data Management Practices (GCDMP), Chapter: Database Validation and Testing, Section 4.4 – Documentation of Test Results

FDA 21 CFR Part 11 – Validation Requirements (Section 11.10(a))

ICH E6 (R2) GCP, Section 5.5.3 – Computer System Validation and Documentation

In anophthalmology clinical study, data criticality is determined by how directly a data element affectssafety evaluation,efficacy assessment, andregulatory decision-making. According to theGood Clinical Data Management Practices (GCDMP, Chapter on Data Validation and Cleaning), critical data fields are those that:

Have a direct impact on theprimary and secondary endpoints, or

Are essential forsafety interpretation and adverse event causality assessment.

Among the listed options,Concomitant Medications (Option B)are consideredcritical datafor ophthalmology studies. This is because many ocular treatments and investigational products can interact with systemic or topical medications, potentially affectingocular response,intraocular pressure,corneal healing, orvisual function outcomes. Any inconsistency in concomitant medication data could directly influencesafety conclusionsorefficacy interpretations.

Other options, while important, are less critical for this study type:

Subject Identifier (A)is essential for data traceability and audit purposes but is not directly related to safety or efficacy outcomes.

Weight (C)may be relevant in dose-dependent drug trials but is rarely a pivotal variable in ophthalmology, where local administration (eye drops, intraocular injections) is common.

Medical History (D)provides contextual background but does not have the same immediate impact on endpoint analysis as current concomitant treatments that can confound the therapeutic effect or cause ocular adverse events.

PerGCDMPandICH E6 (R2) GCPguidelines, data validation plans must definecritical data fieldsduring study setup, reflecting therapeutic area–specific priorities. For ophthalmology,concomitant medications, ocular assessments (visual acuity, intraocular pressure, retinal thickness, etc.), and adverse eventsare typically designated as critical fields requiring heightened validation, source verification, and reconciliation accuracy before database lock.

Thus, when QA identifies discrepancies between the CRF and source, theConcomitant Medications field (Option B)is the most critical to address immediately to ensure clinical and regulatory data integrity.

Reference (CCDM-Verified Sources):

Society for Clinical Data Management (SCDM), Good Clinical Data Management Practices (GCDMP), Chapter: Data Validation and Cleaning, Section 6.4 – Critical Data Fields and Data Validation Prioritization

ICH E6 (R2) Good Clinical Practice, Section 5.18 – Monitoring and Source Data Verification

FDA Guidance for Industry: Oversight of Clinical Investigations — A Risk-Based Approach to Monitoring, Section 5.3 – Identification of Critical Data and Processes

SCDM GCDMP Chapter: Data Quality Assurance and Control – Therapeutic Area–Specific Data Criticality Examples (Ophthalmology Studies)