Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41664011›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2026

SWOT analysis of decentralised clinical trials from an ethical, legal, regulatory and operational perspective.

C Murciano-Gamborino, L Pérez-Breva, A J de Jong, Gjm van Thiel, Y Santa-Ana-Tellez, M Boeckhout, S J Siiskonen, T van Rijssel, H Gardarsdottir, J Fons-Martinez

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2026. 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

10 authors.

C Murciano-GamborinoVaccines Research Area, Foundation for the Promotion of Health and Biomedical Research in the Valencian Region (FISABIO - Public Health), Valencia, Spain.
L Pérez-BrevaVaccines Research Area, Foundation for the Promotion of Health and Biomedical Research in the Valencian Region (FISABIO - Public Health), Valencia, Spain.
A J de JongJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Gjm van ThielJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Y Santa-Ana-TellezDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
M BoeckhoutRotterdam University of Applied Sciences, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
S J SiiskonenDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
T van RijsselJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
H GardarsdottirDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
J Fons-MartinezVaccines Research Area, Foundation for the Promotion of Health and Biomedical Research in the Valencian Region (FISABIO - Public Health), Valencia, Spain. Jaime.fons@fisabio.es.

Funding

the Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking 831458
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDecentralised clinical trial (DCT) approaches are characterised by moving operational procedures from the traditional on-site setting to the participant’s immediate surroundings through the use of digital tools. DCTs have received increased interest in recent years. In this article, a SWOT analysis was carried out to identify the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats for DCT approaches from an ethical, legal, regulatory and operational perspective, as compared to conventional clinical trials (CCTs).

methodsDuring a two-day workshop organised on 5 and 6 April 2022 at Utrecht University, a group of 10 experts from the IMI project Trials@Home identified 8 key trial activities (KTAs) which operational procedures differ between DCTs and CCTs and carried out a SWOT analysis for each activity separately: implementation of decentralised/remote (electronic) informed consent; decentralised screening of potential trial participants; home health visits; telemedicine visits; participant’s self-monitoring; delivery and return of investigational product; clinical trial oversight; and remote safety monitoring. These analyses were categorised to form an overall SWOT analysis for DCTs.

resultsThe analysis revealed 48 strengths, 62 weaknesses, 5 opportunities, and 13 threats across the eight KTAs. Categorisation distilled these into 11 strengths, 13 weaknesses, 2 opportunities, and 4 threats for DCTs. The use of digital technologies, lack of face-to-face contact and harmonisation of regulation were the most targeted issues.

conclusionsDCTs offer potential advantages, such as remote participation, greater autonomy in decision-making, simplified monitoring and access to diverse populations. However, challenges include digital technology barriers, reduced face-to-face contact, difficulties in identity verification and privacy issues. Addressing these challenges requires adequate training of participants and healthcare professionals, robust identity verification methods, strong security measures, and adaptation of communication and procedures. A hybrid approach combining traditional and decentralised elements seems feasible at this stage. Future research should explore the identified strengths and weaknesses of DCTs, propose ethical solutions to remaining challenges and ensure the inclusion of diverse stakeholders.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicConfidentialityDigital HealthHumansInformed ConsentNetherlandsTelemedicineClinical trialsDecentralised clinical trialsEHealthEthicsRegulationSWOT analysisTelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID41664011
PMCPMC12990590

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.