ReviewThe Indian journal of medical research2026
Decentralised clinical trials in India: Stakeholders' perspectives.
Review in The Indian journal of medical research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and objectives Decentralised clinical trials leverage digital technologies to enhance trial accessibility, patient engagement, and improve operational efficiency in clinical research. This study assesses the adoption of these trials among 47 Indian clinical research site professionals from a global survey (n=288). Methods A sub-analysis of a global cross-sectional survey conducted between August-September 2024 assessed respondents' roles, experience, trial types, therapeutic areas, perceived benefits, challenges, patient satisfaction, and expectations from the Indian researchers involved in decentralised clinical trials. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics, weighted averages (scale: 1=significant challenge to5=significant benefit), and mean rank analysis. Results Hybrid trials (n=33;71%) were more prevalent than full trials (n=14;29%). Frequently adopted components included home health visits and remote monitoring (n=10;16% each), particularly in oncology (n=8;17%) and cardiovascular trials (n=7;15%). Key perceived benefits included improved patient convenience (mean score: 3.8) and enhanced participant diversity (3.5). The most significant challenges were limited digital literacy (2.3) and regulatory uncertainty (mean rank 6.1). Patient satisfaction averaged 4.0, with 83% of respondents anticipating continued growth in adoption of hybrid trials. Interpretation and conclusions Hybrid decentralised clinical trials offer promising avenues to enhance inclusivity and efficiency in India's clinical research landscape, especially for non-communicable diseases. Gaps in digital literacy and regulatory uncertainties hinder their scale-up. Strategic investments in workforce training, digital infrastructure, and regulatory clarity are critical to unlocking the full potential of decentralised trials.
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.