Suppr超能文献

分散式临床试验中数字疗法的评估:一项范围综述。

Assessment of digital therapeutics in decentralized clinical trials: A scoping review.

作者信息

Koller Cinja, Blanchard Marc, Hügle Thomas

机构信息

Department of Rheumatology, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.

出版信息

PLOS Digit Health. 2025 Jun 23;4(6):e0000905. doi: 10.1371/journal.pdig.0000905. eCollection 2025 Jun.

Abstract

This scoping review aims to identify the necessary and practical considerations for the design, conduct and safety of decentralized clinical trials (DCTs) that test digital therapeutics (DTx) or software as a medical device (SaMD). The review follows the framework of Arksey & O'Malley. A search strategy with the keywords "Digital therapeutics" or "Software as Medical Device" AND "decentralized clinical trial" or synonyms was applied to Cochrane CENTRAL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and Web of Science databases with the latest search on the 25th of April 2025. We selected peer-reviewed articles reporting about fully or partly DCTs using apps or devices that were classified as DTx or SaMD. Studies using general health software or not focusing on the design or experiences of the DCT were excluded. Main study characteristics were extracted and the articles thematically coded with the qualitative software Atlas.ti. 335 results were assessed for title and abstract screening and 113 articles were identified for full-text screening, of those 41 fulfilled inclusion criteria. DTx used in the trials were mainly targeting depression. The clinical trial design differed significantly in the number of study arms (1-16), participants (11─5602) and blinding. E-recruitment (78%), e-eligibility screening (73%), e-informed consent (68%), inclusion of electronic-patient reported outcomes (e-PROs) (88%), passive data collection (59%) and use of reminders (59%) were key reoccurring features of the studies. Effective access and inclusion of participants, but low adherence and engagement is highlighted in most studies. In some cases, only 40% of participants installed the app and significant drop-out rates of about 50% are reported. A framework for DCTs evaluating DTx is provided. In summary, DCTs for DTx are unstandardized, heterogenous and characterized by low adherence. Further research on how to tackle the engagement problem, along with clearer guidance and regulatory frameworks, is required to standardize this trial type in the future.

摘要

本范围综述旨在确定测试数字疗法(DTx)或作为医疗器械的软件(SaMD)的去中心化临床试验(DCT)在设计、实施和安全性方面的必要和实际考虑因素。该综述遵循Arksey & O'Malley的框架。采用关键词“数字疗法”或“作为医疗器械的软件”以及“去中心化临床试验”或同义词的检索策略,于2025年4月25日对Cochrane CENTRAL、EMBASE、MEDLINE和Web of Science数据库进行了最新检索。我们选择了同行评审的文章,这些文章报告了使用被归类为DTx或SaMD的应用程序或设备进行的全部或部分DCT。排除使用一般健康软件或未关注DCT设计或经验的研究。提取主要研究特征,并使用定性软件Atlas.ti对文章进行主题编码。对335项结果进行了标题和摘要筛选评估,确定了113篇文章进行全文筛选,其中41篇符合纳入标准。试验中使用的DTx主要针对抑郁症。临床试验设计在研究臂数量(1 - 16个)、参与者数量(11 - 5602名)和设盲方面存在显著差异。电子招募(78%)、电子资格筛选(73%)、电子知情同意(68%)、纳入电子患者报告结局(e-PROs)(88%)、被动数据收集(59%)和使用提醒(59%)是这些研究中反复出现的关键特征。大多数研究强调了有效招募和纳入参与者,但依从性和参与度较低。在某些情况下,只有40%的参与者安装了应用程序,报告的显著退出率约为50%。提供了一个评估DTx的DCT框架。总之,用于DTx的DCT未标准化、异质性强且依从性低。未来需要进一步研究如何解决参与问题,以及更明确的指导和监管框架,以规范这种试验类型。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/16c1/12185025/ade0fbfc467f/pdig.0000905.g001.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验