ReviewFrontiers in medicine2025
The status quo of the development of decentralized clinical trials.
Review in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- From Small Data to Big Decisions: How Clinical Pharmacology Shapes Rare Disease Development.Journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Decentralized clinical trials (DCTs) have emerged as a transformative model in new drug development, offering alternatives to traditional site-based trials through the integration of digital technologies and remote processes. This literature review examines the current landscape of DCTs by academic studies, policy reports, and regulatory guidance from major global regions. The review identifies and discusses the opportunities and challenges of DCTs, including scientific and operational innovation, equity and accessibility, governance and trust, and sustainability and infrastructure. A comparative analysis of regulatory frameworks and guidance issued by different regulatory authorities all around the world reveals both convergences and distinctions in how DCTs are approached, particularly in areas such as digital health technologies or patient-centered models. The U.S. emphasizes efficiency and technological integration; the EU prioritizes equity and patient engagement; while China focuses on rare diseases, reducing regional disparities, and maintains a more cautious regulatory approach. The review concludes by identifying the need for greater international coordination and harmonization to fully realize the potential of DCTs while addressing their inherent risks. Building on observed regional differences, it further examines the challenges associated with harmonization, the implications of fragmented governance across jurisdictions, and the lessons learned from pilot implementations. These insights aim to inform future efforts toward more cohesive and globally aligned DCT frameworks.
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.