Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41253425›Full record

SynthesisBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2025

Agreement of treatment effects in decentralised trials versus traditional trials: meta-epidemiological study.

Louise Chaboud, Perrine Janiaud, Julian Hirt, Lars G Hemkens

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Louise ChaboudDepartment of Clinical Research, University of Bern, 3010 Bern, Switzerland.ORCID 0009-0004-0077-3529
Perrine JaniaudDepartment of Clinical Research, University of Bern, 3010 Bern, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-7684-8014
Julian HirtPragmatic Evidence Lab, Research Center for Clinical Neuroimmunology and Neuroscience Basel (RC2NB), University Hospital Basel and University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-6589-3936
Lars G HemkensDepartment of Clinical Research, University of Bern, 3010 Bern, Switzerland lars.hemkens@unibe.ch.ORCID 0000-0002-3444-1432

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare treatment effects from trials designed as decentralised trials or as traditional non-decentralised trials.

designMeta-epidemiological study. DATA SOURCE: PubMed database. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Trials identified as decentralised and included in meta-analyses alongside corresponding non-decentralised trials, restricted to drug interventions across all populations and outcome types.

results51 decentralised trials and 86 non-decentralised trials regarding 11 clinical questions were compared. Decentralised trials were larger than non-decentralised trials (median sample size 1175

conclusionDecentralised trials provide similar answers to clinical questions as traditional, non-decentralised randomised trials. They do not systematically overestimate or underestimate effect estimates, but modest absolute deviations occur that may lead to different conclusions. Beyond direct benefits to participants, decentralisation opens new avenues for randomised trials, including the facilitation of larger trials.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicPoliticsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicEpidemiologic StudiesHumansResearch DesignTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID41253425
PMCPMC12625687

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.