Research Summary

Analyzed using Evidence Intelligence™

Online recruitment strategies improve participation in decentralized trials

Last updated August 29, 2026

Key finding

The recruitment rate was 57% across all sites.

This study evaluated recruitment strategies and remote eConsent in decentralized clinical trials, achieving a 57% recruitment rate.

Quick read

Study at a glance

The essential study design details in one scan.

EvidenceScore™

Moderate

Study type

RCTs

Follow-up

Short-Term (≤3 mo)

Risk of bias

Some Concerns

Save research, organize studies, and quickly find important evidence again.

Plain-language summary

What this paper says

A plain-language read of the study’s main message and where it applies.

Study focus

This study evaluated recruitment strategies and remote eConsent in decentralized clinical trials, achieving a 57% recruitment rate.

Clinical relevance

Understanding effective recruitment strategies and the implementation of remote eConsent is crucial for the success of decentralized clinical trials. This study highlights that even with challenges, a substantial recruitment rate can be achieved, which is vital for ensuring diverse participant representation and the overall success of clinical research.

Keep in mind

Effectiveness of recruitment strategies remains unclear. Challenges faced were documented but not quantified. Retention rates were consistent but not statistically analyzed. Limited generalizability due to specific population characteristics.

Published in

Journal Reference

Publication details and source links for this paper.

Bart L, Linda R, Danny VW, et al. Recruitment Strategies and Remote eConsent Implementation in Decentralized Clinical Trials. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics. 2025;118(5):1067-1078. doi:10.1002/cpt.70042

View DOI View on PubMed View on PMC

Main Effects

The recruitment rate was 57% across all sites.

Participant retention at 6 months did not significantly differ from expected levels.

Challenges in applying REDCHiP strategies were reported but did not impact recruitment.

Technical challenges with devices were noted but did not hinder overall trial progress.

Evidence network

How this study fits

Understand where this research contributes within the broader evidence network.

Evidence Context

This study contributes evidence to Sequential addition of metformin followed by glipizide and insulin glargine and Challenges in Consistently Applying REDCHiP Strategies, Participant retention at 6 months, Recruitment Rate, and 1 more.

This study contributes evidence to

Intervention

Sequential addition of metformin followed by glipizide and insulin glargine

Outcome

Challenges in Consistently Applying REDCHiP Strategies

Primary intervention

Sequential addition of metformin followed by glipizide and insulin glargine

Primary outcomes

Challenges in Consistently Applying REDCHiP Strategies
Participant retention at 6 months
Recruitment Rate

Primary intervention

Sequential addition of metformin followed by glipizide and insulin glargine

Primary outcomes

Challenges in Consistently Applying REDCHiP Strategies Participant retention at 6 months Recruitment Rate

Evidence relationships

Intervention and outcome relationships this study adds to the evidence network.

Evidence pairs

Relationships

Evidence topics

contributes_evidence

Editorial context

Why this study matters

See why this paper is useful beyond its individual results.

Evidence network role

This section describes how the study fits into the current evidence network. It does not determine whether an intervention works on its own.

Moderate contributionModerate confidenceNetwork score: 54

Why it is useful

Contributes to 4 evidence relationships
Includes primary outcome data
Linked to 0 direct semantic evidence topics

Core evidence

Study findings

The primary outcomes reported in this study.

Challenges in Consistently Applying REDCHiP Strategies

Sequential addition of metformin followed by glipizide and insulin glargine → Challenges in Consistently Applying REDCHiP Strategies

Evidence Intelligence™

EvidenceScore™: Emerging; Score 59 · Based on 1 study
ImpactScore™: 50; Neutral
ConsistencyScore™: unclear; Not enough independent studies

Based on 1 study

Add to Evidence Tracker

Participant retention at 6 months

Sequential addition of metformin followed by glipizide and insulin glargine → Participant retention at 6 months

Evidence Intelligence™

EvidenceScore™: Emerging; Score 59 · Based on 1 study
ImpactScore™: 50; Neutral
ConsistencyScore™: unclear; Not enough independent studies

Based on 1 study

Add to Evidence Tracker

Recruitment Rate

Sequential addition of metformin followed by glipizide and insulin glargine → Recruitment Rate

Evidence Intelligence™

EvidenceScore™: Emerging; Score 59 · Based on 1 study
ImpactScore™: 100; Very Positive
ConsistencyScore™: unclear; Not enough independent studies

Based on 1 study

Add to Evidence Tracker

Technical challenges with devices

Sequential addition of metformin followed by glipizide and insulin glargine → Technical challenges with devices

Evidence Intelligence™

EvidenceScore™: Emerging; Score 59 · Based on 1 study
ImpactScore™: 50; Neutral
ConsistencyScore™: unclear; Not enough independent studies

Based on 1 study

Add to Evidence Tracker

Evidence Library

Build your evidence library

Save research, organize studies, and quickly find important evidence again.

Evidence Suggest

Recruitment rate achieved was 57%, indicating effective strategies.
Retention at 6 months was consistent with expectations.
Technical challenges noted did not hinder trial progress.

Who this applies to

Participants in decentralized clinical trials.
Individuals with diabetes requiring insulin therapy.
Patients eligible for remote eConsent processes.

Keep in Mind

The study's findings may not apply to all clinical trial populations.
Challenges reported were qualitative and not quantified.
Retention rates were not statistically analyzed for significance.
The effectiveness of recruitment strategies remains unclear.

Between the Lines

Effectiveness of recruitment strategies remains unclear.
Challenges faced were documented but not quantified.
Retention rates were consistent but not statistically analyzed.
Limited generalizability due to specific population characteristics.

Evidence Library

Build your evidence library

Save research, organize studies, and quickly find important evidence again.

Connected Evidence

Explore related studies, evidence collections, and research questions.

Relationships organized using the Dediabetes Evidence Intelligence™ framework.

This study contributes to evidence on Sequential addition of metformin followed by glipizide and insulin glargine and Challenges in Consistently Applying REDCHiP Strategies, Sequential addition of metformin followed by glipizide and insulin glargine and Participant retention at 6 months.

Related evidence relationships

Explore in Evidence Explorer

This study contributes to the evidence on the following intervention-outcome relationships.

Medications

Detailed evidence

Sequential addition of metformin followed by glipizide and insulin glargine → Challenges in Consistently Applying REDCHiP Strategies

Medications

Evidence Intelligence™

EvidenceScore™: Emerging; Score 59 · Based on 1 study
ImpactScore™: 50; Neutral
ConsistencyScore™: unclear; Not enough independent studies

Based on 1 study

View evidence

Medications

Detailed evidence

Sequential addition of metformin followed by glipizide and insulin glargine → Participant retention at 6 months

Medications

Evidence Intelligence™

EvidenceScore™: Emerging; Score 59 · Based on 1 study
ImpactScore™: 50; Neutral
ConsistencyScore™: unclear; Not enough independent studies

Based on 1 study

View evidence

Included in these evidence collections

Curated evidence collections and hubs this study is part of.

Challenges in Consistently Applying REDCHiP Strategies Evidence Hub

All studies measuring Challenges in Consistently Applying REDCHiP Strategies

1 studies

outcome_hub

Measures Challenges in Consistently Applying REDCHiP Strategies as a key outcome.

Participant retention at 6 months Evidence Hub

All studies measuring Participant retention at 6 months

1 studies

outcome_hub

Measures Participant retention at 6 months as a key outcome.

Sequential addition of metformin followed by glipizide and insulin glargine Evidence Hub

All studies on Sequential addition of metformin followed by glipizide and insulin glargine

1 studies

intervention_hub

Contributes to Sequential addition of metformin followed by glipizide and insulin glargine evidence base.

Recent Diabetes Research

Latest published studies

recency_collection

Published within the last 2 years.

Explore more in Evidence Explorer

Jump to pre-filtered views in Evidence Explorer.

All studies on Sequential addition of metformin followed by glipizide and insulin glargine and Challenges in Consistently Applying REDCHiP Strategies

Intervention: Sequential addition of metformin followed by glipizide and insulin glargineOutcome: Challenges in Consistently Applying REDCHiP Strategies

1 results

All studies on Sequential addition of metformin followed by glipizide and insulin glargine and Participant retention at 6 months

Intervention: Sequential addition of metformin followed by glipizide and insulin glargineOutcome: Participant retention at 6 months

1 results

All studies on Sequential addition of metformin followed by glipizide and insulin glargine

Intervention: Sequential addition of metformin followed by glipizide and insulin glargine

1 results

All studies measuring Challenges in Consistently Applying REDCHiP Strategies

Outcome: Challenges in Consistently Applying REDCHiP Strategies

1 results

All studies measuring Participant retention at 6 months

Outcome: Participant retention at 6 months

1 results

Questions answered by this study

Generated from the study's connected evidence using Evidence Intelligence™.

Does Sequential addition of metformin followed by glipizide and insulin glargine improve recruitment rate?

Emerging Evidence

Sequential addition of metformin followed by glipizide and insulin glargine appears to improve Recruitment Rate.

ConsistencyScore™: Consistency cannot yet be determined from the available evidence.

Ranked evidence signals

1
Recruitment Rate
EvidenceScore™ Emerging | EvidenceScore™ 59.0 | strong positive | ConsistencyScore™ Unclear | 1 study

Why this answer: This answer is based on a single supporting study.

Limitations

Only one supporting study is available.
Consistency cannot yet be determined.
Population details are unavailable.

View Full Evidence

Does Sequential addition of metformin followed by glipizide and insulin glargine improve challenges in consistently applying redchip strategies?

Emerging Evidence

Current evidence does not show a clear benefit of Sequential addition of metformin followed by glipizide and insulin glargine for Challenges in Consistently Applying REDCHiP Strategies.

ConsistencyScore™: Consistency cannot yet be determined from the available evidence.

Ranked evidence signals

1
Challenges in Consistently Applying REDCHiP Strategies
EvidenceScore™ Emerging | EvidenceScore™ 59.0 | neutral | ConsistencyScore™ Unclear | 1 study

Why this answer: This answer is based on a single supporting study.

Limitations

Only one supporting study is available.
Consistency cannot yet be determined.
Population details are unavailable.

View Full Evidence

Does Sequential addition of metformin followed by glipizide and insulin glargine improve participant retention at 6 months?

Emerging Evidence

Current evidence does not show a clear benefit of Sequential addition of metformin followed by glipizide and insulin glargine for Participant retention at 6 months.

ConsistencyScore™: Consistency cannot yet be determined from the available evidence.

Ranked evidence signals

1
Participant retention at 6 months
EvidenceScore™ Emerging | EvidenceScore™ 59.0 | neutral | ConsistencyScore™ Unclear | 1 study

Why this answer: This answer is based on a single supporting study.

Limitations

Only one supporting study is available.
Consistency cannot yet be determined.
Population details are unavailable.

View Full Evidence

Does Sequential addition of metformin followed by glipizide and insulin glargine improve technical challenges with devices?

Emerging Evidence

Current evidence does not show a clear benefit of Sequential addition of metformin followed by glipizide and insulin glargine for Technical challenges with devices.

ConsistencyScore™: Consistency cannot yet be determined from the available evidence.

Ranked evidence signals

1
Technical challenges with devices
EvidenceScore™ Emerging | EvidenceScore™ 59.0 | neutral | ConsistencyScore™ Unclear | 1 study

Why this answer: This answer is based on a single supporting study.

Limitations

Only one supporting study is available.
Consistency cannot yet be determined.
Population details are unavailable.

View Full Evidence

Learn how Evidence Intelligence™ works

Next steps

Continue your research

Choose a next path through related evidence topics, Evidence Explorer views, and research summaries.

Explore in Evidence Explorer

Open broader Evidence Explorer views for this relationship.

All studies on Sequential addition of metformin followed by glipizide and insulin glargine and Recruitment Rate All studies on Sequential addition of metformin followed by glipizide and insulin glargine and Challenges in Consistently Applying REDCHiP Strategies All studies on Sequential addition of metformin followed by glipizide and insulin glargine and Participant retention at 6 months All studies on Sequential addition of metformin followed by glipizide and insulin glargine and Technical challenges with devices

Related research

Read related research summaries.

High protein diet shows no effect on insulin resistance in adolescents Mobile health intervention improves physical activity in type 2 diabetes Smartphone App May Improve Sitting Time in Type 2 Diabetes Triple therapy improves outcomes in type 2 diabetes management Community-Based Intervention Improves Diabetes Management in Low-Income Adults

No ads. No tracking.

Focused on evidence, not advertising.

Secure & private

Your data is always protected.

Always up to date

New studies added every day.