CPR offers you a variety of options for compelling reports that you will not always find with ProcRpt, which allow you to showcase your results in a way that is more engaging.

1. Differences between CPR and ProcRpt
Creating powerful presentations for your clinical trial results is essential for showing the results
of your research. CPR offers you a variety of options for compelling reports that you will not
always find with ProcRpt, which allow you to showcase your results in a way that is more
engaging. With so many options not offered by ProcRpt, you will be able to create reports that
reflect the complexity of your research in a way that is easy to digest.
SAS procs limit your ability to present information in the ways that fit your data. The reporting
and tabulate features offer some flexibility in your reporting methods, but CPR offers you the
ability to add intuitive footnotes, decimal point alignment, and test wrapping, which you will not
be able to access using ProcRpt. Each of these data point offerings allow you to add finesse to
your reporting in order to make a better impression for clients and FDA review panels.
CPR also gives you the ability to create clinical trial reporting that does not have to conform to
the data system. This is a key limitation of ProcRpt, which forces you to bend your data to fit the
reporting platform. When you use CPR, you can use the program to fit your data entries, not the
other way around, giving you the ability to create reports that make more sense for your final
reports.
ProcRpt options, such as the tabulate procedure, limit your data to two-dimensional tables that
are difficult to program and inhibit your ability to create compelling data figures that mesh with
your clinical trial findings. As you compare ProcRpt to CPR, you will find that there are many
such limitations that make creating a final report more cumbersome. CPR gives you greater
flexibility to add key elements such as different fonts, colors, shading, and border styles that are
easily integrated with the RTF style sheet, which can then be transferred to PDF formatting for
distribution.
When comparing CPR to ProcRpt, it is important to look for important features, such as
validation. CPR software is fully validated and appropriate for FDA submissions, so your clinical
trial reports will always be ready for FDA approval upon completion. Validation summaries are
available upon request, giving you peace of mind that the software you use is able to stand up
to regulatory audits or client inquiries. This is essential for ensuring quality results and reporting

2. at all times. Test plans are easy to implement when needed, and CPR offers step-by-step
instructions that allow any member of your staff to create the plan needed for your trials.
Versatile reporting options that are offered with CPR outperform ProcRpt by offering fully
validated software capable of creating reports that conform to your specific needs. Compelling
data structuring, numbering, and style details allow you to create presentations of your clinical
trial findings that represent the research your team does in preparation for FDA submission and
client approval. While ProcRpt limits your ability to format your data the way you want it to
appear, CPR gives you virtually unlimited options, creating better reports that are intelligent and
intuitive.
For more information visit us at http://www.clinplus.com.