Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38586122›Full record

ArticleTranslational and clinical pharmacology2024

The landscape of decentralized clinical trials (DCTs): focusing on the FDA and EMA guidance.

Jiyeon Park, Ki Young Huh, Woo Kyung Chung, Kyung-Sang Yu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Translational and clinical pharmacology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. 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

4 authors.

Jiyeon ParkDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Seoul National University College of Medicine and Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1317-2891
Ki Young HuhDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Seoul National University College of Medicine and Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1872-9954
Woo Kyung ChungDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Seoul National University College of Medicine and Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3411-7421
Kyung-Sang YuDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Seoul National University College of Medicine and Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0921-7225

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Decentralized clinical trials (DCTs) consist of off-site trial-related procedures referred to as decentralized elements. We aimed to provide an overview of the landscape of DCTs by comparing regulatory guidance reports and analyzing decentralized elements from clinical trial registries. Two guidance reports on DCTs published by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agencies were summarized and analyzed. Both guidance publications commonly emphasized an assessment of the appropriateness of decentralized elements along 2 axes: patient safety and data integrity. DCT cases were identified from ClinicalTrials.gov by searching with 6 keywords: decentralized, remote, mobile, digital, virtual, and hybrid. Cases where the keyword was used in a non-DCT context, such as digital flexor tendon, were excluded by means of natural language processing. A total of 4,874 trials were identified as DCT cases, with annual increases, especially after 2020. The most common keywords were 'mobile' and 'digital' (36.2% and 24.8%, respectively). Interventions in the DCT cases were analyzed by means of a network analysis. Behavioral and technological tokens were frequently combined, such as 'rehabilitation' and 'app.' Drugs were used in only 1.8% of the DCT cases. Of these, most drugs had been approved previously (96.8%) and were in oral formulation (67.2%). Most of the DCT cases identified in this study involved simple interventions and low-risk drugs. These characteristics were in accordance with the common recommendations in the DCT guidance publications.

Indexed as

Clinical TrialGuidelineMobile ApplicationsNatural Language ProcessingRemote Consultation

Identifiers

PMID38586122
PMCPMC10990725

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.