Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40906242›Full record

Trial reportClinical pharmacology and therapeutics2025

Recruiting and Consenting Decentralized Clinical Trial Participants-Learnings from the Trials@Home RADIAL Proof-of-Concept Trial.

Bart Lagerwaard, Linda Rutgrink, Danny van Weelij, Katarzyna Lipinska, Tina Bornemann, Robert Davey, Jaime Fons-Martinez, Sabine Dupont, Diederick E Grobbee, Mira G P Zuidgeest and 1 more

Abstract readClinical Trial, Phase IVMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

11 authors.

Bart LagerwaardJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8558-2385
Linda RutgrinkSanofi, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-2037-2461
Danny van WeelijJulius Clinical Research, Zeist, The Netherlands.
Katarzyna LipinskaJulius Clinical Research, Zeist, The Netherlands.
Tina BornemannUCB, Monheim, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-8245-137X
Robert DaveyeClinicalHealth, a Cambridge Cognition Company, Cambridge, UK.
Jaime Fons-MartinezVaccines Research Area, Foundation for the Promotion of Health and Biomedical Research in the Valencia Region (FISABIO-Public Health), Valencia, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8319-3658
Sabine DupontInternational Diabetes Federation Europe, Brussels, Belgium.
Diederick E GrobbeeJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4472-4468
Mira G P ZuidgeestJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1463-8243
Trials@Home Consortium

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical trials often face recruitment challenges. From the participant's perspective, barriers such as time commitment, travel to sites, and logistical burden, like arranging care duties or time off work, can deter enrolment. Decentralized clinical trials (DCTs) aim to address these by shifting activities closer to participants' homes and using online methods for recruitment and consent. This study explores recruitment strategies and remote eConsent implementation in a decentralized setting. The RADIAL trial, a three-arm, open-label, phase IV study in six European countries, enrolled participants with type 2 diabetes mellitus administering Insulin Glargine 300 U/ml. Recruitment strategies included online campaigns, search engine advertising, social media, and research database outreach. The remote consent process involved eConsent, telemedicine consultations, eIdentification, and eSignatures. Online recruitment campaigns generated a lot of impressions but led to very few pre-screener completions or enrolments. In contrast, outreach through research databases proved more effective, accounting for 7 of the 8 enrolled participants in the decentralized arm. Major pre-screening drop-off occurred at the initial consent step, with 69% exiting before data collection. Eleven participants successfully completed eConsent; 4 others required remote paper-based consent due to eIdentification issues. Implementing the multimedia-enhanced eConsent system was resource-intensive, complicated by country-specific layouts and differing regulatory requirements. Tailored recruitment strategies and simplified remote consent processes are needed to enhance the accessibility and efficiency of DCTs. Further research should optimize targeting and keyword use in online recruitment.

Indexed as

Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2Hypoglycemic AgentsInformed ConsentInsulin GlarginePatient SelectionAgedClinical Trials as TopicEuropeFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProof of Concept StudyTelemedicineHypoglycemic AgentsInsulin Glargine

Identifiers

PMID40906242
PMCPMC12598120

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.