The Critical Importance of Dataset Structure Documentation in Define.xml: A Senior SDTM Programmer's Perspective

-
SDTM Dataset Structure Documentation: A Senior Programmer's Perspective

Introduction: Why I'm Writing This

After spending over 15 years mapping clinical data to SDTM, I've seen firsthand how proper dataset structure documentation can make or break a submission. Recently, I encountered a situation where incomplete structure descriptions in Define.xml led to significant rework in a late-phase study. This experience prompted me to share my insights on why meticulous documentation of dataset structures is crucial.

The Real-World Impact of Structure Documentation

Let me share a recent example from my work. We inherited a study where the LB domain structure was documented simply as:

"One record per analyte per planned time point per visit per subject"

However, the key variables included:

STUDYID, USUBJID, LBREFID, LBCAT, LBSCAT, LBTESTCD, LBMETHOD, VISITNUM, LBSTAT, LBORRES, LBDTC

This mismatch led to several issues:

  • Data mapping programs didn't account for method variations (LBMETHOD)
  • Validation checks missed status-dependent conditions (LBSTAT)
  • Analysis datasets required rework due to unexpected categorical groupings (LBCAT, LBSCAT)

Programming Implications

Pro Tip: Always write your SDTM specification review findings in a way that allows for quick implementation of corrections.

From a programming perspective, comprehensive structure descriptions help us:

  • Write more efficient data mapping code by understanding all required keys
  • Implement proper sort orders based on the full record uniqueness
  • Create more robust validation checks
  • Design better performance optimization strategies

Common Structural Documentation Issues I've Encountered

1. The FA (Findings About) Domain Challenge

A classic example is the FA domain, where I often see this structure:

Original: "One record per finding per object per time point per visit per subject"

What it should be:

Improved: "One record per finding per object per grouped observation (FAGRPID), including categorization (FACAT) and method (FAMETHOD), per time point per visit per subject"

Practical Solutions I've Implemented

Over the years, I've developed these practices for better structure documentation:

  1. Automated Comparison Tool: I've created a SAS macro that compares Define.xml structure descriptions against actual key variables used in the datasets.
  2. Structure Template Library: Maintaining a repository of comprehensive structure descriptions for common scenarios.
  3. Review Checklist: A systematic approach to verify structure completeness.

Impact on Study Timeline and Resources

In my experience managing SDTM conversions, proper structure documentation can:

  • Reduce mapping programming time by ~25%
  • Cut validation issues by up to 40%
  • Minimize rework during QC and analysis dataset creation

Recommendations for Fellow SDTM Programmers

Key Practice: Always validate your structure descriptions against both the SDTM Implementation Guide and your actual data.

Based on my experience, here are crucial steps:

  1. Review structure descriptions during specification development
  2. Cross-reference with SDTM IG examples
  3. Validate against actual data patterns
  4. Document any special cases or exceptions

Conclusion: A Call to Action

As senior SDTM programmers, it's our responsibility to ensure that our Define.xml documentation serves its purpose effectively. Proper structure documentation isn't just about compliance – it's about creating efficient, maintainable, and high-quality clinical data submissions.

Remember: The time invested in proper documentation pays dividends throughout the study lifecycle and across future studies.

Share your experiences or reach out for additional insights on SDTM implementation best practices.

Popular posts from this blog

SAS Interview Questions and Answers: CDISC, SDTM and ADAM etc

-
1) What do you know about CDISC and its standards? CDISC stands for Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium and it is developed keeping in mind to bring great deal of efficiency in the entire drug development process. CDISC brings efficiency to the entire drug development process by improving the data quality and speed-up the whole drug development process and to do that CDISC developed a series of standards, which include Operation data Model (ODM), Study data Tabulation Model (SDTM) and the Analysis Data Model ADaM ). 2) Why people these days are more talking about CDSIC and what advantages it brings to the Pharmaceutical Industry? A) Generally speaking, Only about 30% of programming time is used to generate statistical results with SAS®, and the rest of programming time is used to familiarize data structure, check data accuracy, and tabulate/list raw data and statistical results into certain formats. This non-statistical programming time will be significantly reduced...
Read more

Comparing Two Methods for Removing Formats and Informats in SAS: DATA Step vs. PROC DATASETS

-
Comparing Two Approaches to Removing Formats and Informats in SAS Comparing Two Approaches to Removing Formats and Informats in SAS When working with SAS datasets, there are times when you need to remove formats and informats that have been previously assigned to variables. Two primary approaches can be used for this task: Using the DATA Step Using the PROC DATASETS Procedure This article compares and contrasts these two approaches to help you determine which method is most appropriate for your needs. Approach 1: Using the DATA Step The DATA step is a versatile and commonly used method for removing formats and informats. By assigning variables to a null format or informat, you can effectively remove these attributes from your dataset. Example: data mydata_clean; set mydata; format _all_; informat _all_; run; In this example, the mydata dataset is processed in the DATA step, and...
Read more

Studyday calculation ( --DY Variable in SDTM)

-
USE OF THE “STUDY DAY” VARIABLES The permissible Study Day variables (--DY, --STDY, and --ENDY) describe the relative day of the observation starting with the reference date as Day 1. They are determined by comparing the date portion of the respective date/time variables (--DTC, --STDTC, and --ENDTC) to the date portion of the Subject Reference Start Date (RFSTDTC from the Demographics domain). The Subject Reference Start Date (RFSTDTC) is designated as Study Day 1. The Study Day value is incremented by 1 for each date following RFSTDTC. Dates prior to RFSTDTC are decremented by 1, with the date preceding RFSTDTC designated as Study Day -1 (there is no Study Day 0). This algorithm for determining Study Day is consistent with how people typically describe sequential days relative to a fixed reference point, but creates problems if used for mathematical calculations because it does not allow for a Day 0. As such, Study Day is not suited for use in subsequent numerical computations...
Read more