Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38229901›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2023

Decentralized research technology use in multicenter clinical research studies based at U.S. academic research centers.

Mollie R Cummins, Jeri Burr, Lisa Young, Sharon D Yeatts, Dixie J Ecklund, Brian E Bunnell, Jamie P Dwyer, John M VanBuren

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Progress toward realizing the promise of decentralized clinical trials.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Mollie R CumminsUniversity of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7078-8479
Jeri BurrUniversity of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Lisa YoungUniversity of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Sharon D YeattsMedical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
Dixie J EcklundUniversity of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA.
Brian E BunnellUniversity of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA.
Jamie P DwyerUniversity of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
John M VanBurenUniversity of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1350-5764
University of Utah · USMedical University of South Carolina · USUniversity of Iowa · USUniversity of South Florida · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: During the COVID-19 pandemic, research organizations accelerated adoption of technologies that enable remote participation. Now, there's a pressing need to evaluate current decentralization practices and develop appropriate research, education, and operations infrastructure. The purpose of this study was to examine current adoption of decentralization technologies in a sample of clinical research studies conducted by academic research organizations (AROs). Methods: The setting was three data coordinating centers in the U.S. These centers initiated coordination of 44 clinical research studies during or after 2020, with national recruitment and enrollment, and entailing coordination between one and one hundred sites. We determined the decentralization technologies used in these studies. Results: We obtained data for 44/44 (100%) trials coordinated by the three centers. Three technologies have been adopted across nearly all studies (98-100%): eIRB, eSource, and Clinical Trial Management Systems. Commonly used technologies included e-Signature (32/44, 73%), Online Payments Portals (26/44, 59%), ePROs (23/44, 53%), Interactive Response Technology (22/44, 50%), Telemedicine (19/44, 43%), and eConsent (18/44, 41%). Wearables (7/44,16%) and Online Recruitment Portals (5/44,11%) were less common. Rarely utilized technologies included Direct-to-Patient Portals (1/44, 2%) and Home Health Nurse Portals (1/44, 2%). Conclusions: All studies incorporated some type of decentralization technology, with more extensive adoption than found in previous research. However, adoption may be strongly influenced by institution-specific IT and informatics infrastructure and support. There are inherent needs, responsibilities, and challenges when incorporating decentralization technology into a research study, and AROs must ensure that infrastructure and informatics staff are adequate.

Indexed as

Biomedical researchclinical research informaticsdata coordinating centersdecentralized researchdecentralized trialsdigital healthinformatics

Identifiers

PMID38229901
PMCPMC10790101
OpenAlexW4388499091

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.