Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41544140›Full record

ArticlePLOS digital health2026

Decentralized clinical trials: A comprehensive analysis of trends, technologies, and global challenges.

Sara Kijewski, Claire McBride, Eric Owens, Elsa Bernheim, Effy Vayena

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS digital health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

5 authors.

Sara KijewskiHealth Ethics and Policy Lab, Department of Health Sciences and Technology, ETH Zurich, Zürich, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7781-7869
Claire McBrideHealth Ethics and Policy Lab, Department of Health Sciences and Technology, ETH Zurich, Zürich, Switzerland.
Eric OwensHealth Ethics and Policy Lab, Department of Health Sciences and Technology, ETH Zurich, Zürich, Switzerland.
Elsa BernheimHealth Ethics and Policy Lab, Department of Health Sciences and Technology, ETH Zurich, Zürich, Switzerland.
Effy VayenaHealth Ethics and Policy Lab, Department of Health Sciences and Technology, ETH Zurich, Zürich, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Decentralized clinical trials (DCTs), particularly in the U.S., gained substantial attention during the COVID-19 pandemic, enabling trial activities to be conducted from participants' homes or local healthcare facilities despite restrictions and lockdowns. Regardless of the growth in interest, many facets of the DCT landscape remain unexplored or nascent in their development. This study aims to explore the key characteristics and development of the U.S.-registered DCT landscape, adoption patterns across various clinical contexts, and the role of digital technologies. We analyzed 1370 decentralized trials from ClinicalTrials.gov, collected using a broad DCT-keyword search. The data were screened and coded manually, and analyzed descriptively for temporal trends, purpose of decentralization, intervention type, geographic representation, and digitalization. Our findings align with previous reports of a growing, heterogeneous landscape of DCTs, with behavioral interventions appearing more suitable for decentralization than other types of interventions. Notably, most DCTs still focus on evaluating decentralized methods rather than merely implementing them in their investigations. Often, studies integrate digital tools either as the interventions themselves or to enable the digital delivery of study activities. Although the trial registry used is U.S.-based, and a U.S. partner is part of more than 50% of the studies identified, many trials are done in multiple countries or countries outside of the U.S. (42%). Among these trials, the data revealed considerable differences, with digitalized DCTs in this sample concentrated in high-income countries. Despite rapid growth in DCTs, our findings suggest the presence of a field in development, very much focused on establishing a methodological foundation. To unlock the potential of DCTs locally and globally, four critical areas demand further attention: digital equity, regulatory frameworks for diverse technologies, establishment of methodological validation processes, and further research on barriers to implementation.

Identifiers

PMID41544140
PMCPMC12810901

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.