GuidelineNature medicine2024
Recommendations to promote equity, diversity and inclusion in decentralized clinical trials.
Guideline in Nature medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 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
23 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pioneering a Hybrid Decentralized Clinical Trial in South Korea: Assessing Feasibility, Data Integrity, and Participant Perceptions.Clinical and translational science · 2026Trial
- Does expansion of clinical trial capacity improve healthcare access?Nature medicine · 2026Article
- AI-based augmentation of oncology clinical trials.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2026Review
- Recommendations for the use of clinical outcome assessments in rare disease drug development.EClinicalMedicine · 2026Review
- Article
- Who gets included? Equity in digital and decentralised mental health and neurodevelopmental trials: A systematic review.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Review
- A framework to amplify the voices of underrepresented children and young people in rare disease research.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2026Article
- Assessing the assessment: a scoping review of the mode of patient-reported outcome assessment in solid cancer clinical trials.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Running a clinical trial remotely: Lessons learnt from a decentralised multicentre randomised controlled trial evaluating a digital health intervention for Chronic Kidney Disease.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Adherence to Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: A Null-Results Review of Measure-Related Effects on Response Rates in Routine Care.Patient preference and adherence · 2026Review
- Assessing reporting completeness and characteristics in decentralized randomized controlled trials: a scoping review protocol.Systematic reviews · 2025Article
- Advancing clinical research in the Spanish primary care service: Challenges, opportunities, and lessons from other European models.The European journal of general practice · 2025Article
- Correlates of patient-centered discussions on colorectal cancer screening: results from the health information national trends survey (HINTS).Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2025Article
- Clinical Trials With Pragmatic Elements: A Review of Use Cases and Real-World Data Utilization.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2025Review
- Increasing Retention in a Large-Scale Decentralized Clinical Trial: Learnings From the COVID-RED Trial.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health · 2025Article
- Knowledge of Clinical Trials Among US Cancer Survivors: Cross-Sectional Study of HINTS-SEER Data.JMIR cancer · 2025Article
- Bringing Trial Activities to Participants-The Trials@Home RADIAL Proof-of-Concept Trial Investigating Decentralization of Trials.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2025Article
- Decentralized Clinical Trials in Pediatrics: Is Italy Ready?Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Mixed methods study of views and experience of non-hospitalised individuals with long COVID of using pacing interventions.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Decentralized clinical trials involving the use of digital tools to facilitate remote research are gaining momentum. Rapid advancements in digital technologies have supported the adoption of these trials. These innovations facilitate virtual interactions between clinical trial teams and participants by making it easier to collect, transfer and store electronic data. While some studies have demonstrated the potential for these approaches to reduce barriers to clinical trial participation, they are associated with several challenges that may create or worsen existing health inequalities and limit the generalizability of trial results. Here we review the potential for digitally enabled and decentralized clinical trials to enhance clinical trial participation in an equitable manner. We describe the key barriers individuals from underserved groups may face, and provide recommendations to promote equity, diversity and inclusion.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39472759What 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.