Monitoring and auditing are both important processes in clinical trials and are used to ensure that the trial is conducted in compliance with applicable regulations and guidelines. While these terms are often used interchangeably, there are some key differences between monitoring and auditing. Monitoring refers to the ongoing review of clinical trial data and processes to ensure that the trial is conducted in accordance with the study protocol, regulatory requirements, and good clinical practice (GCP) guidelines. Monitoring typically involves regular visits to the clinical trial site by a monitor who reviews the trial data, source documents, and other relevant information. The monitor also verifies that the trial is being conducted in compliance with the study protocol and that adverse events and other safety concerns are being reported in a timely manner. Auditing, on the other hand, is a more formal and comprehensive review of the clinical trial data and processes to ensure compliance with regulations, guidelines, and standard operating procedures (SOPs). Auditing is typically conducted by an independent auditor who is not involved in the trial and who reviews a sample of trial data and documents to verify that the trial was conducted in compliance with applicable regulations and guidelines. Auditing may also involve interviews with study staff and other individuals involved in the trial. Some key differences between monitoring and auditing include: Scope: Monitoring is typically focused on the ongoing review of trial data and processes, while auditing is a more comprehensive review of trial data and processes. Timing: Monitoring is conducted throughout the trial, while auditing is typically conducted after the trial has been completed. Purpose: The purpose of monitoring is to ensure that the trial is being conducted in compliance with the study protocol and regulatory requirements, while the purpose of auditing is to provide an independent assessment of trial compliance and to identify areas for improvement.