Adoption of 'decentralized' clinical trial terminology: a systematic review of self-identified decentralized clinical trials
File(s)
Published version (article in press)
Author(s)
Type
Journal Article
Abstract
Importance
In recent years, trials have leveraged digital tools and remote methods to improve patient access and diversity, streamline operations, enhance data collection, and reduce costs and timelines. Regulatory terminology has defined these as decentralized clinical trials. While many earlier trials incorporated one or more decentralized elements (e.g. e-consent, remote monitoring), little is known about recent trials that adopt multiple elements and explicitly identify as decentralized.
Objective
To determine, in trials explicitly identifying as decentralized, which decentralized elements they use, where they are occurring, and which therapeutic areas and interventions they involve.
Methods
A search of MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL from inception to September 9, 2024, yielded 4357 articles. Two reviewers independently and in duplicate screened titles, abstracts, and full texts to identify trials explicitly described as decentralized. Key data were extracted in duplicate to ensure accuracy. Additionally, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched on July 18, 2024, to identify unpublished and ongoing decentralized clinical trials.
Results
Thirty-three publications (28 unique trials) met inclusion, all published since 2021, with numbers increasing annually. Only four trials described themselves as decentralized in their trial registration records. Of the 28 included trials, 54% were completed and 46% were ongoing, with a median sample size of 900 (IQR 192-1470). All were single-country studies, 96% from high-income countries, mostly in North America. Pharmacological interventions were most common (43%). Among nine decentralized components evaluated, e-consent was used in 71% of trials, and devices for outcome data collection in 75%. It was unclear if electronic health records were used for screening in 75%, and centralized monitoring in 79% of trials. Patient-reported outcomes were frequent, collected in 86% of trials and serving as the primary outcome in 61%.
Conclusion
Since regulators introduced the terminology in 2018, adoption among trials explicitly identifying as decentralized has increased since 2021, although the overall number remains low. These trials occur mainly in high-income countries, suggesting potential inequities in implementation or reporting. No single decentralized element combination dominated, indicating variability in how decentralized approaches are implemented across disease areas and interventions. Improved reporting is needed to distinguish between underuse and underreporting of decentralized elements.
PROSPERO registration number
CRD42024571898.
In recent years, trials have leveraged digital tools and remote methods to improve patient access and diversity, streamline operations, enhance data collection, and reduce costs and timelines. Regulatory terminology has defined these as decentralized clinical trials. While many earlier trials incorporated one or more decentralized elements (e.g. e-consent, remote monitoring), little is known about recent trials that adopt multiple elements and explicitly identify as decentralized.
Objective
To determine, in trials explicitly identifying as decentralized, which decentralized elements they use, where they are occurring, and which therapeutic areas and interventions they involve.
Methods
A search of MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL from inception to September 9, 2024, yielded 4357 articles. Two reviewers independently and in duplicate screened titles, abstracts, and full texts to identify trials explicitly described as decentralized. Key data were extracted in duplicate to ensure accuracy. Additionally, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched on July 18, 2024, to identify unpublished and ongoing decentralized clinical trials.
Results
Thirty-three publications (28 unique trials) met inclusion, all published since 2021, with numbers increasing annually. Only four trials described themselves as decentralized in their trial registration records. Of the 28 included trials, 54% were completed and 46% were ongoing, with a median sample size of 900 (IQR 192-1470). All were single-country studies, 96% from high-income countries, mostly in North America. Pharmacological interventions were most common (43%). Among nine decentralized components evaluated, e-consent was used in 71% of trials, and devices for outcome data collection in 75%. It was unclear if electronic health records were used for screening in 75%, and centralized monitoring in 79% of trials. Patient-reported outcomes were frequent, collected in 86% of trials and serving as the primary outcome in 61%.
Conclusion
Since regulators introduced the terminology in 2018, adoption among trials explicitly identifying as decentralized has increased since 2021, although the overall number remains low. These trials occur mainly in high-income countries, suggesting potential inequities in implementation or reporting. No single decentralized element combination dominated, indicating variability in how decentralized approaches are implemented across disease areas and interventions. Improved reporting is needed to distinguish between underuse and underreporting of decentralized elements.
PROSPERO registration number
CRD42024571898.
Date Issued
2026-07-31
Date Acceptance
2026-07-20
Citation
Trials, 2026
ISSN
1745-6215
Publisher
BMC
Journal / Book Title
Trials
Copyright Statement
© The Author(s) 2026. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
License URL
Publication Status
Published online
Date Publish Online
2026-07-31