Screenshot review is an important regulatory compliance quality control step in multilingual eCOA implementation. Once a COA translation is implemented on an electronic platform, screenshots are generated and reviewed to confirm that the approved linguistic content has been transferred and displays correctly.

While the principle of eCOA screenshot review is straightforward, the process can become resource-intensive in large global studies. Multiple review rounds may be required, queries can move between several stakeholders, and corrections often require new screenshots to be generated and reviewed. Late changes to the source instrument or approved COA instrument translation may require further checks despite previously having undergone review.

The impact on eCOA localization becomes particularly visible when multiple instruments and languages are involved. What begins as a final QC activity can quickly become a significant operational bottleneck, particularly when screenshot review identifies issues that originated earlier in the localization or implementation process.

Screenshot Review Exposes Upstream Issues in eCOA Implementation

By the time a screenshot reaches a linguistic reviewer, these activities have already taken place in eCOA implementation:

• Selection of source instrument
• Translation and linguistic validation process completed
• Transfer of approved content to eCOA provider
• Configuration of electronic build

Some findings can only be identified once the eCOA instrument is viewed in its final context. These findings may include:

• Truncated or missing text
• Inappropriate line breaks
• Incorrect formatting or layout
• Problems with response-option presentation
• Language-specific display issues

Other findings may become visible during screenshot review, but have their root cause earlier in the process. For example, a discrepancy between a screenshot and the approved translation may result from an outdated file, incorrect content transfer, poor version control, or a linguistic change that wasn’t consistently communicated across stakeholders. Understanding this distinction is important. Correcting the screenshot resolves the immediate issue, but it doesn’t necessarily address the process that created it.

Some eCOA Implementation Screenshot Problems Originate Outside the Screenshot

When the same type of eCOA implementation defect recurs across languages, instruments, or studies, reviewing and correcting each occurrence individually can lead to significant rework and extended timelines. Root-cause analysis can help identify whether recurring findings point to broader weaknesses in areas such as:

• Version and change control
• Content transfer between language and eCOA providers
• eCOA implementation specifications
• Communication of approved linguistic changes
• Platform constraints that were identified too late

This shifts the focus from increasing the screenshot-review speed to reducing the number of preventable findings that reach this stage in the first place.

Scale Amplifies Small Inefficiencies in eCOA Implementation

The effect of additional review cycles in eCOA implementation increases considerably in global studies. With multiple instruments, languages, and screens, even one additional round can create a substantial volume of repeat reviews. Late changes have a similar multiplying effect. An early-in-the-process source update may affect a single asset. Once content has been translated, migrated, and reviewed across multiple languages, the same update can trigger changes to:

• Translations
• Electronic build
• Screenshots
• Associated approvals

Effective change control is therefore closely linked to screenshot review efficiency. The later a change occurs, the more downstream assets and stakeholders risk being affected.

Measuring Quality Beyond the Number of Reviews in eCOA Implementation

Regulated workflows may necessitate additional checks, but the number of review rounds alone doesn’t necessarily indicate a stronger quality process. It can also indicate that defects are repeatedly being introduced earlier in the workflow. Useful measures of process performance could include:

• First-time-right implementation rates
• Average number of screenshot review rounds
• Number and type of findings per review cycle
• Recurring defect categories and their root causes

Technology can also support some of the more repetitive comparison activities. For example, automated checks can help identify missing content, version discrepancies, and differences between approved linguistic content and the implemented version. Expert review remains important when determining whether a detected difference has implications for linguistic meaning, usability, or the integrity of the assessment.

The objective should be to strengthen quality controls throughout the workflow and thus reduce preventable issues during screenshot review. Used in this way, screenshot review can fulfill its intended role as a final verification of the patient-facing implementation, rather than becoming a repeated correction cycle for upstream issues.

Get in touch

Looking for a partner to assist with your Clinical Outcome Assessment (COA) translations? Lionbridge has decades of experience providing clinical trial translation services to pharmaceutical and medical device giants.  Let’s get in touch.

References  

Mowlem FD, Elash CA, Dumais KM, et al. Best Practices for the Electronic Implementation and Migration of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures. Value in Health. 2024;27(1):79–94. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2023.10.007.  

Romero H, DeBonis D, O'Donohoe P, et al. Recommendations for the Electronic Migration and Implementation of Clinician-Reported Outcome Assessments in Clinical Trials. Value in Health. 2022;25(7):1090–1098.