ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2021
Developing Digital Tools for Remote Clinical Research: How to Evaluate the Validity and Practicality of Active Assessments in Field Settings.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Validity of remote live stream video evaluation of the North Star Ambulatory Assessment in patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy.PloS one · 2024Trial
- Review
- Optimizing mobile cognitive assessment reduces administration time while maintaining screening accuracy in older adults.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Tele-assessment in limb-girdle muscular dystrophy: feasibility and reliability of patient-led asynchronous method.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2025Article
- Investigating Measurement Equivalence of Smartphone Sensor-Based Assessments: Remote, Digital, Bring-Your-Own-Device Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- A systematic literature review of the impact and measurement of mobility impairment in rare bone diseases.Therapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease · 2025Review
- The Ultra-Long-Term Sleep study: Design, rationale, data stability and user perspective.Journal of sleep research · 2024Article
- Real-world evidence for coverage determination of treatments for rare diseases.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2024Article
- Adherence type impacts completion rates of frequent mobile cognitive assessments among older adults with and without cognitive impairment.Research square · 2023Article
- Recruitment and Retention in Remote Research: Learnings From a Large, Decentralized Real-world Study.JMIR formative research · 2022Article
- Article
- Deployment of an End-to-End Remote, Digitalized Clinical Study Protocol in COVID-19: Process Evaluation.JMIR formative research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The ability of remote research tools to collect granular, high-frequency data on symptoms and digital biomarkers is an important strength because it circumvents many limitations of traditional clinical trials and improves the ability to capture clinically relevant data. This approach allows researchers to capture more robust baselines and derive novel phenotypes for improved precision in diagnosis and accuracy in outcomes. The process for developing these tools however is complex because data need to be collected at a frequency that is meaningful but not burdensome for the participant or patient. Furthermore, traditional techniques, which rely on fixed conditions to validate assessments, may be inappropriate for validating tools that are designed to capture data under flexible conditions. This paper discusses the process for determining whether a digital assessment is suitable for remote research and offers suggestions on how to validate these novel tools.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.