ArticleSkin health and disease2026
Do remote clinical trials offer carbon savings while maintaining research quality? Experiences from the Eczema Bathing Study.
Article in Skin health and disease, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Traditional clinical trials contribute significantly to the carbon footprint of healthcare. They are also expensive and take a long time to complete. Remote trials could offer part of the solution. They are a type of decentralized trial that use digital innovations to move all activities to participants' homes or online. This gives them the potential to speed up recruitment, reduce overall trial duration, improve geographical inclusion and reduce the trial's carbon footprint. Objectives: To assess whether a remote trial could reduce a trial's carbon footprint, while maintaining the research quality needed to answer the scientific questions. The primary objective was to calculate the carbon footprint of a remote eczema trial and compare it with traditional and hybrid trials; the secondary objective was to assess quality indicators of remote, hybrid and traditional eczema trials in terms of speed of recruitment, retention and adherence to interventions. Methods: Carbon footprinting of the remote Eczema Bathing Study ( Results: The carbon footprint of the Eczema Bathing Study was 14 tonnes CO Conclusions: The Eczema Bathing Study's lower carbon footprint in comparison with the other clinical trials mentioned in this study was largely due to online recruitment methods, reduced need for patient and staff travel, and reduced overall trial duration. Adherence and retention were slightly lower than for traditional trials but remained within predefined limits for the study's size calculations. In situations where remote assessment of diagnosis and outcomes is possible, and where advertising direct to participants is appropriate, running trials completely online has the potential to improve speed of recruitment, reduce overall trial duration and reduce carbon emissions.
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.