EMA · Life Science & Pharma: GxP - CSV & Data Integrity

Notice to sponsors on validation and qualification of computerised systems used in clinical trials

Final CSV · Guidance Last verified: not yet · Source last checked 3 Nov 2026

Issued by
EMA
Category
CSV
Sub Category
Guidance
Legal weight
Guidance & Q&A
Reuse
EMA reuse

A reminder from EMA that clinical trial sponsors must be able to show their computerised systems are validated, even when vendors supply them.

How to read this page

Details: Guide Definitions: every term and label explained

Lifecycle

Solid steps have happened. A dashed step is expected, and it is not a fact. Only dated steps in our record appear here.

  1. Done · 7 Apr 2020First published
  2. Done · 29 Oct 2026Revision 1: administrative update of references

In plain English

EMA notice to clinical trial sponsors on validating and qualifying computerised systems, such as electronic case report forms and patient reported outcome tools.

Summary drafted with AI assistance. Not yet reviewed by the SME Reviewer. Read the official text before acting.

Context and history

First published on 7 April 2020, this EMA notice reminds sponsors of expectations on validating and qualifying computerised systems in trials. Revision 1, dated 29 October 2026, only updates references, and EMA says it does not alter requirements.

EMA explains why it issued the notice: recurrent inspection findings affected the integrity, reliability and acceptability of data in marketing authorisation applications. The notice stresses that even if a sponsor delegates work, ultimate responsibility stays with the sponsor under Regulation (EU) No 536/2014.

Who and what it applies to

Clinical trial sponsors, and vendors providing computerised systems or services, for tools such as eCRFs, ePROs, safety databases, interactive response technology and clinical trial management systems.

What it contains

Legal background
Refers to Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 and ICH E6(R3).
Expectations
Validation evidence and sponsor responsibility, where vendors supply systems or services.

Key points

  • The sponsor keeps ultimate responsibility, even when work is delegated.
  • Sponsors must be able to show systems are qualified and validated, including vendor evidence.
  • It was prompted by recurrent inspection findings.

In practice

General reading, not advice. This is drafted with AI and may not fit your situation. It does not replace the official text, your own quality system or qualified advice, and an inspector may take a different view.

  • Make sure you can access vendor validation documentation, and that contracts allow this during an inspection.

Read from the source document on 1 Nov 2026. This is our own description, not the official text. Check the full dated history in the change log below.

Change log

Key dated events only, not a complete history. Status after is the status once that event happened. Event kinds explained

DateEventStatus afterSource
29 Oct 2026Revision 1: administrative update of referencesFinalSource for Revision 1: administrative update of references
7 Apr 2020First publishedFinalSource for First published

How other documents connect to this one. Links explained

Compare with all linked instruments

Official source

The official text always prevails over anything on this site.

Read the official text

Source: EMA. Summary adapted from the original.

Stay updated

Newsletter signup opens at launch.