Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40970561›Full record

ArticleClinical pharmacology and therapeutics2025

Operationalizing Decentralized Clinical Trials: Technology Insights from the Trials@Home RADIAL Proof-of-Concept Trial.

Sten Hanke, Dimitrios Giannikopoulos, Bernhard Neumayer, Tea Vedenkannas, Robert Davey, Lampros Mpaltadoros, Brian Guthrie, Rebecca Jackson, Bart Lagerwaard, Mira Zuidgeest and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Sten HankeInstitute of eHealth, FH Joanneum University of Applied Sciences, Graz, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3833-4252
Dimitrios GiannikopoulosBayer AG, Wuppertal, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-0168-3047
Bernhard NeumayerInstitute of eHealth, FH Joanneum University of Applied Sciences, Graz, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4439-4799
Tea VedenkannasBayer Oy, Espoo, Finland.
Robert DaveyeClinicalHealth, a Cambridge Cognition Company, Cambridge, UK.
Lampros MpaltadorosCentre for Research and Technology Hellas (CERTH), Information Technologies Institute (ITI), Thessaloniki, Greece.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8652-7628
Brian GuthrieFortrea's headquarters is in Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Rebecca JacksonJanssen Pharmaceuticals, Johnson & Johnson Innovative Medicine, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, UK.
Bart LagerwaardJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8558-2385
Mira ZuidgeestJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1463-8243
Trials@Home consortium

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While decentralized clinical trials (DCTs) hold great promise for improving trial accessibility and efficiency, the effective deployment of DCT elements requires robust technological infrastructure and careful system integration. Although several innovative technologies are now available for implementing DCT elements, most existing setups integrate single-vendor solutions, which restrict the potential for tailored trial designs as well as seamless interoperability between different platforms and solutions. This paper presents operational learnings from the Trials@Home RADIAL proof-of-concept trial. RADIAL implemented a modular, multi-vendor technology package. RADIAL adopted a deliberate strategy to avoid a monolithic "one-vendor-for-all" solution, instead selecting technologies and integrating them only where it added clear value. Core systems-such as eConsent and Bluetooth glucometer-were fully integrated into the central platform, while other components were deliberately managed outside the core system. The aim was to implement and validate a multi-vendor technology setup and generate learnings that would help DCT trialist in designing DCTs, especially in terms of technology selection and integration. Key challenges arose from Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) variability, immature device technologies, and infrastructure limitations at clinical sites-particularly affecting components like telemedicine. The results emphasize the significance of investing in participant support infrastructure, as well as early cross-functional support, while automated, multichannel notifications seem to guide participant engagement. Finally, embedding compliance by planning early streamlines documentation through a clear governance model seemed to enhance agility and reduce burden.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicHumansProof of Concept StudyResearch Design

Identifiers

PMID40970561
PMCPMC12598119

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.