- Published
- Updated
- Sources checked
An eTMF completeness percentage can hide missing evidence when the expected records list is wrong. Start with the decisions and activities that must be reconstructed, then identify where their records actually reside.
Map expected records
Create a study records map covering sponsor, investigator and service provider holdings. Distinguish a required record that has not yet been generated from one that is overdue, superseded or genuinely inapplicable. Record the reason for each status.
Link the activity trail
For a laboratory transfer, link the agreement, approved specification, transfer acceptance and issue resolution. A filename alone does not explain how the receiving team accepted the data. Preserve the relationship between the records without unnecessarily duplicating controlled originals.
eTMF quality checks
- Assign an accountable owner and expected trigger to every record class.
- Test links to records held outside the primary eTMF.
- Review missing signatures, unreadable files and inconsistent versions separately.
Accept a retrievable map
Accept the map after a reviewer can retrieve one complete activity trail, identify the authoritative version and explain each open gap. Use the resulting exception list in oversight meetings; a green dashboard should remain traceable to its underlying evidence. Distinguish investigator approval from sponsor acceptance: each proves a different responsibility, and neither should silently substitute for the other in the location map.
Frequently asked questions
- Is a high completeness score sufficient?
- No. First verify that expected records and their applicability match the actual study activities.
- Must every record be copied into one system?
- No. Controlled locations can be mapped, provided access, ownership and retrieval remain clear.