ReviewBMC medical ethics2025
Diversity in decentralized clinical trials: prioritizing inclusion of underrepresented groups.
Review in BMC medical ethics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Addressing the Key Challenges of Decentralized Clinical Trials in Europe: Multistakeholder Perspective Delphi Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Who gets included? Equity in digital and decentralised mental health and neurodevelopmental trials: A systematic review.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Racial and ethnic diversity in clinical studies reported to ClinicalTrials.gov, 2009-2024.BMJ open quality · 2026Article
- Ethical Challenges and Considerations in Decentralized Clinical Trials (DCTs): Insights from a Scoping Review.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe importance of more diversity of study populations in clinical trials is currently widely acknowledged. Decentralized clinical trial (DCT) approaches are presented as a potential means to broaden diversity by eliminating several barriers to participation. However, the precise meaning of, and objectives related to diversity in DCTs remain unclear. Diversity runs the risk of becoming a 'buzzword': widely acknowledged to be important, yet prone to multiple interpretations and challenging to implement in practice. We argue that the aim of increasing diversity in clinical trials requires clear and well-substantiated specifications.
methodsWe analyze the concept of diversity and the ethical requirements surrounding fair participant selection within the context of clinical research, in order to further specify and operationalize the aim of increasing diversity in the context of DCTs.
resultsThrough analyzing the concept of diversity and ethical requirements for fair participant selection, we propose that diversity should be specified in a way that improves the position of the groups that are currently most underrepresented in the research context. In practice, this entails that, in order to contribute to diversity, the selection of participants should prioritize (i) gaining scientific knowledge on groups for which this is lacking, and (ii) inclusion of underrepresented groups in research when appropriate considering a study's objectives, and risks and benefits.
conclusionsOur analysis facilitates translating the aim of increasing diversity with DCTs to more specific and actionable objectives for recruitment and inclusion. Moreover, it contributes to a further specification of the concept of diversity and fair participant selection in research contexts.
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.