Brief · Use case · Clinical Operations
Decentralized Trial Evidence Review.
LiveEvidence ReviewReview the evidence on whether decentralized trial elements improve retention and diversity, with certainty rated per outcome.
Decentralized Trial Evidence Review is a ready-made use case for Clinical Operations. It ships under the Evidence Review template.
For clinical operations leads weighing a design choice. You get the PICO, the main studies with effect and risk of bias, certainty per outcome with the reason and what remains open. Studies are cited or marked as gaps.
Add it to your library to reuse from New → From template. Edit the saved copy in your library on the service form.
The decision
What does the published evidence show on whether decentralized elements in clinical trials improve participant retention and enrollment diversity?
What is reviewed
The evidence base is small, and most of it is not from randomized comparisons. The review says so first.
| Evidence | What it holds | What the review does with it |
|---|---|---|
| Systematic review of decentralized methods | Miyata, Tafuto and Jose (2023) found 13 studies. Eleven reported improved recruitment, seven reported positive retention (four compared directly with traditional methods), and six trended toward more diversity.1 | Counts as published; other versions of the same work report slightly different counts. |
| Commentary on progress | A later commentary describes 12 studies and says decentralized approaches improved all domains, which is stronger than the review’s own counts.2 | Not used for the findings; used for context only. |
What the review does
Recruitment is the clearest finding. Retention is supported by fewer studies, and diversity is directional. The review rates certainty low for retention and very low for diversity, and labels the ratings analyst judgment.1
Reach does not follow automatically. Work summarized in the commentary argues that decentralized recruitment may not reach the groups expected, and that a small unconditional payment at recruitment can raise efficiency.2
What would settle it. Randomized or well-matched comparisons of the same trial run with and without decentralized elements, with the same retention and diversity measures.
Recommended length
Standard
The question is narrow and the studies are few enough to tabulate. Standard carries the PICO, the studies, the effect, the certainty and the open question in about 1,300 words.
You can pick another length on the form. The other two stay available.
Assumptions the review checks
The review states the assumptions its question and its rating rest on, and says what each gap limits. Examples for this question:
- Studies of decentralized methods in other trial types apply to the reader’s design.
- Trends in diversity reflect an effect of the method and not of the population approached.
- Retention is measured the same way across studies.
Standards, guidance and sources
Evidence
The decision practice behind the memo itself is on the template page.
What gets flagged
Any count that differs between versions of the same work, any claim stronger than the study counts support, and any outcome with one supporting study.
What arrives
- The question and the bottom line
- How the evidence was found
- The evidence
- What it shows
- How strong it is
- Where studies disagree
- Where the evidence is thin
- What the evidence does not answer
What it will not do
It is a rapid review, not a systematic one. It reports the effects the studies reported, does not pool them into a new estimate, and labels every certainty rating as analyst judgment.
It does not say whether a decentralized design is right for a particular trial.
It is not a systematic review. It uses a bounded search, says so, and recommends a full literature review when completeness matters.
It does not pool studies into a new estimate. It reports the effects the studies reported.
It does not compute a missing interval or plot a missing effect as zero. Both are marked as gaps.
References
- [1] Miyata, Tafuto, Jose. Methods and perceptions of success for patient recruitment in decentralized clinical studies. Journal of Clinical and Translational Science, 2023. DOI 10.1017/cts.2023.643. Counts as given in search excerpts; a conference abstract of the same work gives slightly different counts. The full text was not read.
- [2] Progress toward realizing the promise of decentralized clinical trials. Journal of Clinical and Translational Science. Commentary; read as search excerpts only.
Links checked 9 October 2026
These are the sources the template drew on. None of their authors or issuers has reviewed it.
About the Brief service
A Brief is a written answer from one specialist, at the depth you asked for. It arrives with its sources, and it closes by saying plainly what would change the conclusion. Nothing is hidden behind a summary, and anything the expert could not source is marked as a gap rather than filled in.
To edit a saved template, open New → Brief → From template, or the library rail on the service form.