Currently submitted to: Journal of Medical Internet Research
Date Submitted: Nov 3, 2025
Open Peer Review Period: Nov 4, 2025 - Dec 30, 2025
(closed for review but you can still tweet)
NOTE: This is an unreviewed Preprint
Warning: This is a unreviewed preprint (What is a preprint?). Readers are warned that the document has not been peer-reviewed by expert/patient reviewers or an academic editor, may contain misleading claims, and is likely to undergo changes before final publication, if accepted, or may have been rejected/withdrawn (a note "no longer under consideration" will appear above).
Peer review me: Readers with interest and expertise are encouraged to sign up as peer-reviewer, if the paper is within an open peer-review period (in this case, a "Peer Review Me" button to sign up as reviewer is displayed above). All preprints currently open for review are listed here. Outside of the formal open peer-review period we encourage you to tweet about the preprint.
Citation: Please cite this preprint only for review purposes or for grant applications and CVs (if you are the author).
Final version: If our system detects a final peer-reviewed "version of record" (VoR) published in any journal, a link to that VoR will appear below. Readers are then encourage to cite the VoR instead of this preprint.
Settings: If you are the author, you can login and change the preprint display settings, but the preprint URL/DOI is supposed to be stable and citable, so it should not be removed once posted.
Submit: To post your own preprint, simply submit to any JMIR journal, and choose the appropriate settings to expose your submitted version as preprint.
Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.
Quantifying the Digital Ecosystem: A Market Scan of Technologies for Decentralized Clinical Trial Operations
ABSTRACT
Background:
Decentralized clinical trials (DCTs) are transforming traditional research by allowing participants to remotely take part through digital technologies such as telemedicine, mobile applications, and digital platforms, overall enhancing participation, safety, accessibility, and overall trial outcomes. The COVID-19 pandemic further accelerated adoption, as there was a pressing need to minimize infection risks, delays, and disruptions. Despite growing innovation and initiatives like Trials@Home, there is limited understanding of how commercial technologies align with and support trial operations in the DCT lifecycle.
Objective:
This study aimed to map the landscape of commercial technologies used in DCTs and assess their availability, suitability, and alignment with clinical trial operations across the DCT lifecycle.
Methods:
A market scan of commercial technologies was conducted in 2024-2025 to update and add on previous work in 2020 using a structured approach. Seven peer groups were formed, each assigned to one of seven Basic Building Blocks (BBBs) representing key phases of the clinical trial lifecycle. These groups independently reviewed and categorized relevant solutions. The process included reassessment of previously identified solutions and identification of new technologies through keyword-based web searches, and categorization by the number of BBBs covered. Solutions also were categorized as Single- or Multiple-BBB based on their coverage, and a co-occurrence analysis identified strong and underrepresented pairings in BBB coverage.
Results:
The scan identified 312 technological solutions supporting DCTs. A similar distribution of solutions across BBBs was observed, with Set-up and Design and Patient Engagement being the most represented, while Operation and Coordination was the least covered. Most tools were specialized, with 226 single-BBB solutions, 48 covering two BBBs, and fewer than 10 addressing five or more. Only 2 solutions covered all seven BBBs. Co-occurrence analysis revealed strong overlaps between Patient Engagement, Intervention and Follow-up, and Operation and Coordination, while Set-up and Design showed minimal overlap with other BBBs.
Conclusions:
The rapid evolution of DCT technologies highlights the importance of structured assessments to guide technology selection. The balanced distribution of solutions per BBB suggests a broad coverage of trial operations. The stronger coverage in Set-up and Design and Patient Engagement compared with Operation and Coordination indicates areas for further development. The majority of tools were highly specialized with only a few covering multiple trial operations in an integrated manner. This reflects the maturity of specialized solutions and the potential for comprehensive systems spanning the full trial lifecycle. The strong pairs between Patient Engagement with Operation and Coordination and Intervention and Follow-up, together with the minimal overlap of Set-up and Design reveal a gap between planning and execution phases. This study provides a comprehensive catalogue of technologies, and offers practical insights to inform strategic technology selection for more efficient, inclusive, and connected clinical trial operations.
Citation
Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.
Copyright
© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.