ArticleTherapeutic innovation & regulatory science2025
Considerations and Approaches to Establishing Estimates of Meaningful Change for Digital Endpoints as Drug Development Tools.
Article in Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science, 2025. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis paper seeks to identify some of the complexities associated with determining meaningful change for endpoints derived from digital health technologies (DHTs) and propose possible methodologies for this process. Ultimately, this is a call to action to consider appropriate methods and practices required to enable digital endpoints (DEs) to achieve their full potential as Drug Development Tools.
methodsUsing the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Patient-Focused Drug Development (PFDD) guidance documents as a framework, we explore the nuances and challenges that exist when determining meaningful change for DEs compared with traditional clinical outcome assessments (COAs).
resultsThere are unique characteristics associated with DEs that provide distinct challenges when determining meaningful change. This complexity spans the totality of meaningful change considerations, from ensuring that the DE itself is meaningful from the patient perspective to selecting appropriate anchors that enable determination of the magnitude of change that is meaningful for patients.
conclusionsWith increased adoption of DHTs in clinical trials, their specific use is evolving, as evidenced by their being referred to as DHT-passive monitoring COAs in the FDA drug development tool (DDT) qualification program. However, the determination of meaningful change for these DEs can be more nuanced and challenging than for traditional COAs. Merely adapting existing approaches for traditional COAs does not readily support DEs derived from continuous datasets collected over long periods. New methods and approaches are required, and this can only be realised by working together, to ensure that the value and limitations of various methodologies as they relate to DEs can be refined.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40360902What 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.