ArticleBMJ open2026
Association between decentralised clinical trial adoption and trial duration: a retrospective cross-sectional study of metabolic disease trials.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo examine the association between decentralised clinical trial (DCT) adoption and trial duration in metabolic disease trials.
designRetrospective cross-sectional analysis using analyst-curated metadata from the GlobalData Clinical Trials Database, matched with ClinicalTrials.gov records via unique identifiers.
settingIndustry-initiated phases 1-3 trials for metabolic diseases involving the USA (first patient enrolment 2015-2023).
participants444 trials (phase 1: n=140; phase 2: n=155; phase 3: n=149).
main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was clinical trial duration (CTD), defined as the interval from first patient in (FPI) to last patient last visit. The secondary outcome was the primary completion period (PCD-FPI), used for sensitivity analysis.
resultsAmong 444 trials, 124 (27.9%) were identified as DCTs. Adoption differed significantly across clinical phases (phase 1: 11.4%; phase 2: 29.7%; phase 3: 41.6%; [Formula: see text]). Two-way analysis of variance showed that clinical phase was significantly associated with CTD ([Formula: see text]), whereas the main effect of DCT adoption was not significant ([Formula: see text]). Phase 2 and 3 DCTs exhibited numerically shorter mean durations (17.3 vs 18.3 months; 23.4 vs 25.0 months), but these differences did not reach statistical significance ([Formula: see text]). In phase-stratified regression analyses, DCT status remained non-significant across all phases. Older adult inclusion was associated with shorter CTD in phase 3 [Formula: see text]). Sensitivity analysis using PCD-FPI yielded consistent findings.
conclusionsDCT adoption was not significantly associated with shorter trial duration in metabolic disease trials after adjustment for clinical phase and clinical characteristics. These findings may reflect the current stage of DCT implementation, in which operational complexities may coexist with theoretical expectations of efficiency. Further evaluation in more mature implementation settings may clarify whether decentralised approaches are associated with improved efficiency.
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.