{"title":"分散临床试验中数字疗法的评估:范围综述。","authors":"Cinja Koller, Marc Blanchard, Thomas Hügle","doi":"10.1371/journal.pdig.0000905","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":74465,"journal":{"name":"PLOS digital health","volume":"4 6","pages":"e0000905"},"PeriodicalIF":7.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12185025/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessment of digital therapeutics in decentralized clinical trials: A scoping review.\",\"authors\":\"Cinja Koller, Marc Blanchard, Thomas Hügle\",\"doi\":\"10.1371/journal.pdig.0000905\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74465,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PLOS digital health\",\"volume\":\"4 6\",\"pages\":\"e0000905\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12185025/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PLOS digital health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000905\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/6/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLOS digital health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000905","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/6/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
本范围审查旨在确定分散临床试验(dct)的设计、实施和安全性的必要和实际考虑因素,这些试验将数字疗法(DTx)或软件作为医疗设备(SaMD)进行测试。该报告遵循了Arksey & O'Malley的框架。在Cochrane CENTRAL、EMBASE、MEDLINE和Web of Science数据库中应用关键词“数字治疗”或“作为医疗设备的软件”和“分散临床试验”或同义词的搜索策略,并于2025年4月25日进行最新搜索。我们选择了同行评议的文章,报道了使用归类为DTx或SaMD的应用程序或设备的完全或部分dct。使用一般健康软件或不关注DCT设计或体验的研究被排除在外。用定性软件Atlas.ti提取主要研究特征,并对文章进行主题编码。对335篇结果进行标题和摘要筛选,对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组(1-16)、受试者(11─5602)和盲法方面存在显著差异。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果(e-PROs)(88%)、被动数据收集(59%)和使用提醒(59%)是研究中反复出现的关键特征。大多数研究都强调了有效的接触和包容参与者,但低依从性和参与度。在某些情况下,只有40%的参与者安装了应用程序,据报道,退出率约为50%。提供了一个dct评估DTx的框架。总之,DTx的dct不标准化,异质性和低依从性的特点。需要进一步研究如何解决审计业务参与问题,以及制定更明确的指导和监管框架,以便在未来使这种审判类型标准化。
Assessment of digital therapeutics in decentralized clinical trials: A scoping review.
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.