Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40310274›Full record

ArticleClinical and translational science2025

Integrating Sustainability Pillars Into Trial Design Decision-Making: Results of an International Survey.

Pritibha Singh, Oleksandr Sverdlov, Robert A Beckman, Andrea M Burden

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical and translational science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Pritibha SinghPharmacoepidemiology Group, Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0009-0001-2092-007X
Oleksandr SverdlovNovartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, New Jersey, USA.
Robert A BeckmanDepartments of Oncology and of Biostatistics, Bioinformatics, and Biomathematics, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center and Innovation Center for Biomedical Informatics, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC, USA.
Andrea M BurdenPharmacoepidemiology Group, Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The pharmaceutical industry is increasingly shifting to decentralized clinical trials (DCTs) conducted at the patient's home, sometimes including trial material home delivery. The traditional clinical trial (CT) is conducted at the investigational site. Research suggests that centralized and decentralized trials have a large carbon footprint, with DCTs potentially providing patient-centric solutions. However, leaders must determine how to integrate environmental, economic, and social sustainability pillars into their portfolios and subsequent downstream trial-level decisions. An online survey was designed and deployed via Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule's (ETH, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology) SurveySelect software to capture perceptions of priorities and tradeoffs when deciding between a DCT and a traditional CT for each pillar. The survey closed on 31st January 2023. A total of 447 participants responded. The findings revealed that the overall cohort prioritized greenhouse gas emissions (22.4%) for environmental impact, trial probability of success (15%) for economic considerations, and patient convenience (23.3%) for social criteria. Overall, the DCT setting was perceived as more sustainable in all pillars. Participants reported tradeoffs centered on patient engagement and bringing new medicines to the market. The results from this survey provide initial insights into international multistakeholder perceptions of the priorities and tradeoffs when choosing between a traditional CT and DCT. The synthesized perceptions inform three key recommendations: the need (1) for simulation studies to guide holistic decision-making across all pillars as empirical data accumulates, (2) to protect the environment, and (3) to protect the supply chain. As empirical data accumulates, these recommendations provide directionality for further research.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicDecision MakingResearch DesignAdultCarbon FootprintDrug IndustryFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient ParticipationSurveys and Questionnairesdecentralized clinical trial (DCT)decision‐makingeconomicenvironmentqualitative dataquantitative datasocialsurveysustainability

Identifiers

PMID40310274
PMCPMC12045023

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-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.