ReviewMultiple sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England)2023
Decentralised clinical trials in multiple sclerosis research.
Review in Multiple sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Recommendations to promote equity, diversity and inclusion in decentralized clinical trials.Nature medicine · 2024Guideline
- Neurostatus-SMARTCARE clinical trial: Enabling health care professionals to assess EDSS for decentralized trials in multiple sclerosis.Multiple sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England) · 2025Trial
- An updated review of the SMA clinical trial landscape in the United States: Findings from analysis of recruitment targets on ClinicalTrials.gov and a survey of SMA clinical trial sites on factors affecting site capacity and readiness.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2026Article
- Trial characteristics, methods and reported challenges of decentralised clinical trials: a scoping review.BMJ open · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) play an important role in multiple sclerosis (MS) research, ensuring that new interventions are safe and efficacious before their introduction into clinical practice. Trials have been evolving to improve the robustness of their designs and the efficiency of their conduct. Advances in digital and mobile technologies in recent years have facilitated this process and the first RCTs with decentralised elements became possible. Decentralised clinical trials (DCTs) are conducted remotely, enabling participation of a more heterogeneous population who can participate in research activities from different locations and at their convenience. DCTs also rely on digital and mobile technologies which allows for more flexible and frequent assessments. While hospitals quickly adapted to e-health and telehealth assessments during the COVID-19 pandemic, the conduct of conventional RCTs was profoundly disrupted. In this paper, we review the existing evidence and gaps in knowledge in the design and conduct of DCTs in MS.
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.