A systematic review of methods used to conduct decentralised clinical trials.

AIMS: To evaluate, using quantitative and qualitative approaches, published data on the design and conduct of decentralised clinical trials (DCTs). METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, ClinicalTrials.gov, OpenGrey and Google Scholar for publications reporting, discussing, or evaluating decentralised clinical research methods. Reports of randomised clinical trials using decentralised methods were included in a focused quantitative analysis with a primary outcome of number of randomised participants. All publications discussing or evaluating DCTs were included in a wider qualitative analysis to identify advantages, disadvantages, facilitators, barriers and stakeholder opinions of decentralised clinical trials. Quantitative data were summarised using descriptive statistics, and qualitative data analysed using a thematic approach. RESULTS: Initial searches identified 19 704 articles. After removal of duplicates, 18 553 were screened, resulting in 237 eligible for full-text assessment. Forty-five trials were included in the quantitative analysis; 117 documents were included in the qualitative analysis. Trials were widely heterogeneous in design and reporting, precluding meta-analysis of the effect of DCT methods on the primary recruitment outcome. Qualitative analysis formulated 4 broad themes: value, burden, safety and equity. Participant and stakeholder experiences of DCTs were incompletely represented. CONCLUSION: DCTs are developing rapidly. However, there is insufficient evidence to confirm which methods are most effective in trial recruitment, retention, or overall cost. The identified advantages, disadvantages, facilitators and barriers should inform the development of DCT methods. We recommend further research on how DCTs are experienced and perceived by participants and stakeholders to maximise potential benefits.

Application of Healthcare 'Big Data' in CNS Drug Research: The Example of the Neurological and mental health Global Epidemiology Network (NeuroGEN).

Neurological and psychiatric (mental health) disorders have a large impact on health burden globally. Cognitive disorders (including dementia) and stroke are leading causes of disability. Mental health disorders, including depression, contribute up to one-third of total years lived with disability. The Neurological and mental health Global Epidemiology Network (NeuroGEN) is an international multi-database network that harnesses administrative and electronic medical records from Australia, Asia, Europe and North America. Using these databases NeuroGEN will investigate medication use and health outcomes in neurological and mental health disorders. A key objective of NeuroGEN is to facilitate high-quality observational studies to address evidence-practice gaps where randomized controlled trials do not provide sufficient information on medication benefits and risks that is specific to vulnerable population groups. International multi-database research facilitates comparisons across geographical areas and jurisdictions, increases statistical power to investigate small subpopulations or rare outcomes, permits early post-approval assessment of safety and effectiveness, and increases generalisability of results. Through bringing together international researchers in pharmacoepidemiology, NeuroGEN has the potential to be paradigm-changing for observational research to inform evidence-based prescribing. The first focus of NeuroGEN will be to address evidence-gaps in the treatment of chronic comorbidities in people with dementia.