Home / Clinical trial monitoring services
Clinical monitoring · Medical devices · EuropeDeploy device-specialized CRAs for standalone monitoring or for a full-service clinical investigation, with on-site, remote and centralized oversight coordinated across European sites under one monitoring plan.
Send your countries, number of sites, expected start and the protocol or synopsis. Eclevar comes back with the monitoring model and the CRA coverage the study needs.
Three different problems arrive at this page, and the scope is not the same for any of them.
You keep the protocol, project management, regulatory, safety and data management. Eclevar supplies the monitoring resource: site initiation visits, interim monitoring visits, remote review, close-out and the monitoring reports for your trial master file.
Visits are overdue, CRAs have turned over, findings sit open, deviations are caught late, or nobody covers the country you just opened. Eclevar takes over monitoring from an incumbent team, subject to a transition assessment.
One partner coordinates feasibility, site selection, start-up, project management, monitoring, data management, safety coordination and clinical reporting, with monitoring as one thread inside a single accountable structure.
France, Germany, Spain, the United Kingdom, Italy, Ireland and the Nordic market. Select a market to see how monitoring is staffed there.
CRA allocation and the precise country delivery model are confirmed during study scoping. Where your study needs a market outside this set, say so early: Eclevar will tell you whether coverage can be built for it or whether the site is better placed elsewhere.
Medical device investigations add monitoring dimensions that may not arise in the same way in other clinical research.
Device accountability, procedural technique, operator learning curves, device deficiencies, implant and component identifiers, imaging, performance endpoints and device-related safety reporting all sit inside the monitoring scope. A device is implanted, positioned or operated by a clinician whose technique varies and improves across the study, and that variation shows in the endpoint data. Monitoring that reads only the eCRF misses it.
Eclevar monitors the device, the procedure and the evidence, not only the case report form.
This is why the monitoring plan is written against the protocol rather than adapted from a template. The critical data in a structural heart investigation, an orthopedic implant study and a wound care post-market clinical follow-up are not the same, and the visit that finds a problem in one would find nothing in the others.
What the CRA team does at each stage, and what lands in your trial master file.
Protocol training, device training, delegation log, essential documents, source data plan and eCRF access, all confirmed before the first participant.
Consent and eligibility, protocol adherence, source review against critical data, device accountability, safety reporting and deviations, with every action item given an owner and a date.
Off-site review of certified copies and eCRF data where site agreements, national source access rules and local data protection requirements permit it. Explore our on-site and remote clinical monitoring services for the visit model in detail.
Enrollment pace, late and missing data, query burden, deviation patterns and safety trends reviewed across sites between visits, so the next visit is aimed rather than scheduled by calendar.
Open items closed, device accountability reconciled, outstanding data resolved, and the site formally closed with the record that shows it.
Offering all three is not the point. What matters is whether the central view changes where the CRA goes next, and whether findings come back closed.
Enrollment, late and missing data, query burden, deviation and safety trends read across all sites.
The sites and data points where an error would most damage participant safety or the primary endpoint.
Visit order, visit depth and verification scope reset against current risk rather than a fixed schedule.
Remote review where source access allows it, an on-site visit where the question can only be answered at the site.
Each finding tracked to closure, with the trail from identification to resolution kept in the monitoring file.
Closure feeds back into the central view, the risk picture is updated, and the loop runs again.
Risk-based monitoring is not a reason to visit less. It is a way to decide where the next visit goes, and to be able to show why.
Central review of study data surfaces the patterns a single site visit cannot: a site enrolling far faster or slower than its peers, data entered weeks after the visit, fields left empty in one center and not another, a deviation type that keeps recurring, a query backlog that never clears, and safety reporting that is quiet in a way the enrollment numbers do not support.
Those signals drive four decisions and nothing else: which site the CRA visits next, how deep verification goes there, what can be resolved remotely instead, and what is escalated to the sponsor now rather than at the next report. Verification depth is set by risk to critical data and critical processes, the approach ISO 14155 supports, and it is defined in the monitoring plan before the first participant.
Where a study runs on Milo Studio, Eclevar's electronic data capture platform, data capture, query management, deviation logging and the site performance picture sit in one connected environment designed to support this workflow. Where a sponsor uses a different EDC, Eclevar runs the same monitoring model against the sponsor's system: the platform is not a condition of the service.
What clinical operations and procurement are buying. The exact set follows the agreed scope.
The pattern is familiar and it compounds. Each stage makes the next one more expensive to fix.
Sites go unvisited past the interval the monitoring plan sets.
Site knowledge leaves with the CRA and handover is thin or undocumented.
The backlog ages, and the people who could answer it have moved on.
Found late, repeated across participants, and harder to explain after the fact.
Reports, follow-up letters and closure evidence missing from the record.
The reconciliation that should have happened along the way lands all at once.
What has been monitored, what has not, and the real state of the documentation, stated plainly.
Findings, deviations, queries and action items collected from the incumbent team and the sites, then triaged.
Sites ranked by risk to participant safety and to the primary endpoint.
CRAs assigned by country, language and device experience, sized against the backlog.
A documented transfer of site knowledge, contacts, essential documents and open items.
A schedule that clears the backlog and keeps current visits running, with the trade-offs stated.
Open findings worked to closure, including the items that cannot now be reconstructed.
A named escalation route and a reporting rhythm you can see week by week.
Not every study can be recovered to the position it would have held. Some gaps cannot be reconstructed, and the assessment says so. A transition stops the backlog growing, closes what is closable and documents the rest honestly.
A named, ongoing program where the operational question was coverage across countries and consistency between sites.
Post-market clinical follow-up evidence for an autologous platelet concentrate used in chronic wounds, across two distinct populations, diabetic foot ulcer and venous leg ulcer, in centers that treat them under different clinical pathways.
A randomized post-market clinical follow-up program of 160 participants across 14 clinical sites in several European countries, running two cohorts against the same protocol architecture.
Eclevar designed and is managing the program, including the clinical operations structure across the participating countries and the data capture environment the study runs on.
Site-level oversight coordinated centrally, so that two cohorts in multiple countries are held to one set of definitions, one escalation route and one reporting format.
Program in progress. The description covers program architecture and delivery structure only. No clinical result, enrollment completion, regulatory outcome or Notified Body position is stated or implied. Client name and program description used with permission.
Where Eclevar's clinical and monitoring experience is deepest.
Clinical operators execute the study. Device specialists understand the procedure. Former reviewers understand how the evidence will be scrutinized later.
Project Delivery Lead, France and United Kingdom
Runs monitoring delivery in France and the United Kingdom: monitoring plans, visit scheduling, escalation and the state of the monitoring file, alongside clinical investigation delivery and site oversight.
Chief Medical Officer, Orthopedics and Spine
Practicing orthopedic surgeon and former clinical reviewer at TÜV SÜD. Brings the procedural view to monitoring: what a CRA should be seeing in an implant record, and where operator variability shows up in the data.
Chief Operating Officer and Head of Cardiovascular
Cardiac surgeon, and former Team Leader and Senior Clinical Reviewer at TÜV SÜD. Reads a monitoring file the way an assessor will read it later, which is what shapes the definition of critical data at the start of a study.
Notified Body experience is professional background, not a medical qualification, and the two are stated separately above. Former positions are given for biographical context only. Eclevar is independent and is not affiliated with or endorsed by TÜV SÜD. Meet the full leadership team.
Monitoring is priced from the visit workload the protocol creates.
Number of countries, number of sites, how far apart the sites sit, and the CRA languages the study needs at site level.
Number and frequency of visits, the on-site and remote split, travel, and the source data review and verification strategy the risk assessment supports.
Recruitment period, study duration, enrollment pace, protocol and device complexity, and whether the engagement starts clean or as a transition with a backlog.
A slow-recruiting study is not cheaper to monitor. It is usually more expensive, because the visit calendar runs for longer against the same number of participants. That trade-off is worth surfacing before the protocol is final.
Send the protocol or synopsis, the participating countries, the number of sites and the anticipated study start. Eclevar assesses the monitoring model and the CRA resource, and sets out the assumptions so you can see which of them move the number.
Clinical trial monitoring is the systematic oversight of the progress of a clinical investigation, confirming that the study is conducted, recorded and reported according to the protocol, monitoring procedures and applicable requirements.
For medical device clinical investigations, ISO 14155 provides the device-specific Good Clinical Practice framework, alongside applicable requirements under the EU Medical Device Regulation and national requirements. Modern monitoring combines on-site visits, remote review and centralized data review, with verification depth set by risk to critical data and critical processes rather than applied uniformly to every field.
Read what good monitoring practice looks like under ISO 14155 for the methodology in detail.
Yes. You keep the protocol, project management, regulatory, safety and data management. Eclevar supplies the CRA resource, the monitoring plan and the monitoring documentation, working to your systems and reporting formats.
Yes, and it is the most common way sponsors start with us. Scope is defined by visit type and volume, so you can add CRA capacity in specific countries without changing who runs the study.
France, Germany, Spain, the United Kingdom, Italy, Ireland and the Nordic market, which we state at market level rather than by individual country. CRA allocation and the country delivery model are confirmed during study scoping and written into the proposal. If your study needs a market outside this list, tell us early and we will say whether coverage can be built for it.
Yes, subject to a transition assessment: a monitoring gap review, an open item review and a documented handover, then a revised schedule that clears the backlog while current visits continue.
Yes, and it is worth raising early rather than at database lock. The assessment names which sites carry the most risk and which gaps can still be closed. Not every study can be returned to the position it would have held, and the assessment says so plainly.
Yes. Device monitoring covers device accountability, device deficiencies and adverse device effects, procedure documentation, operator variability, device training and implant identifiers. CRAs are matched to the therapeutic area as well as the country.
Yes, together with centralized review, and the split is set per study by risk, source access rules and site burden. Explore our on-site and remote clinical monitoring services for that model in detail.
Yes, on the same principles, usually with a lighter on-site footprint and more weight on centralized review, because site burden and follow-up completeness are the dominant risks. See post-market clinical follow-up.
Yes, including first-in-human and pivotal investigations, where device accountability, procedural documentation and early safety reporting carry more monitoring weight.
Yes. The monitoring plan defines critical data and critical processes up front and sets verification depth against them. ISO 14155 supports this approach rather than uniform verification of every data point.
From the study risk assessment, the protocol, the critical data and processes, enrollment pace and site performance. It is set in the monitoring plan and revised when the risk picture changes, not fixed by a generic interval.
It depends on countries and sites, visit number and frequency, the on-site and remote split, travel, study duration, protocol and device complexity, and whether there is a backlog to clear. We do not publish benchmark rates: a rate without the visit workload behind it is not a budget.
The protocol or synopsis, the participating countries, the number of sites, the expected study start and the recruitment period. If the study is running, add the current monitoring status. That is enough for a monitoring model and a resourcing view.
Send the protocol or synopsis, the participating countries, the number of sites and the expected study start. If the study is running, add the current monitoring status. Eclevar comes back with the monitoring model, the CRA coverage and the assumptions behind the estimate.
