ArticlePloS one2023
Ethical challenges of using remote monitoring technologies for clinical research: A case study of the role of local research ethics committees in the RADAR-AD study.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Practical templates for digital health ethics applications in Sweden: lessons from a sensor-based monitoring study.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
- Informed consent in dementia research: how Public Involvement can contribute to addressing "old" and "new" challenges.Frontiers in dementia · 2025Article
- What patients and caregivers want to know when consenting to the use of digital behavioral markers.NPP - digital psychiatry and neuroscience · 2024Article
- Digital endpoints in clinical trials: emerging themes from a multi-stakeholder Knowledge Exchange event.Trials · 2024Article
- Augmented reality versus standard tests to assess cognition and function in early Alzheimer's disease.NPJ digital medicine · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
26 authors at 15 institutions in 12 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionClinical research with remote monitoring technologies (RMTs) has multiple advantages over standard paper-pencil tests, but also raises several ethical concerns. While several studies have addressed the issue of governance of big data in clinical research from the legal or ethical perspectives, the viewpoint of local research ethics committee (REC) members is underrepresented in the current literature. The aim of this study is therefore to find which specific ethical challenges are raised by RECs in the context of a large European study on remote monitoring in all syndromic stages of Alzheimer's disease, and what gaps remain.
methodsDocuments describing the REC review process at 10 sites in 9 European countries from the project Remote Assessment of Disease and Relapse-Alzheimer's Disease (RADAR-AD) were collected and translated. Main themes emerging in the documents were identified using a qualitative analysis approach.
resultsFour main themes emerged after analysis: data management, participant's wellbeing, methodological issues, and the issue of defining the regulatory category of RMTs. Review processes differed across sites: process duration varied from 71 to 423 days, some RECs did not raise any issues, whereas others raised up to 35 concerns, and the approval of a data protection officer was needed in half of the sites. DISCUSSION: The differences in the ethics review process of the same study protocol across different local settings suggest that a multi-site study would benefit from a harmonization in research ethics governance processes. More specifically, some best practices could be included in ethical reviews across institutional and national contexts, such as the opinion of an institutional data protection officer, patient advisory board reviews of the protocol and plans for how ethical reflection is embedded within the study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.