School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Department of Experimental Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Contemp Clin Trials. 2021 Feb;101:106239. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2020.106239. Epub 2020 Dec 3.
The novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has mobilized global research at an unprecedented scale. While challenges associated with the COVID-19 trial landscape have been discussed previously, no comprehensive reviews have been conducted to assess the reporting, design, and data sharing practices of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
The purpose of this review was to gain insight into the current landscape of reporting, methodological design, and data sharing practices for COVID-19 RCTs.
We conducted three searches to identify registered clinical trials, peer-reviewed publications, and pre-print publications.
After screening eight major trial registries and 7844 records, we identified 178 registered trials and 38 publications describing 35 trials, including 25 peer-reviewed publications and 13 pre-prints.
Trial ID, registry, location, population, intervention, control, study design, recruitment target, actual recruitment, outcomes, data sharing statement, and time of data sharing were extracted.
Of 178 registered trials, 112 (62.92%) were in hospital settings, median planned recruitment was 100 participants (IQR: 60, 168), and the majority (n = 166, 93.26%) did not report results in their respective registries. Of 35 published trials, 31 (88.57%) were in hospital settings, median actual recruitment was 86 participants (IQR: 55.5, 218), 10 (28.57%) did not reach recruitment targets, and 27 trials (77.14%) reported plans to share data.
The findings of our study highlight limitations in the design and reporting practices of COVID-19 RCTs and provide guidance towards more efficient reporting of trial results, greater diversity in patient settings, and more robust data sharing.
2019 年新型冠状病毒(COVID-19)大流行以前所未有的规模调动了全球研究。虽然之前已经讨论过与 COVID-19 试验格局相关的挑战,但尚未进行全面审查来评估随机对照试验(RCT)的报告、设计和数据共享实践。
本综述旨在深入了解 COVID-19 RCT 的报告、方法学设计和数据共享实践的现状。
我们进行了三次搜索以确定注册的临床试验、同行评议出版物和预印本出版物。
在筛选了八个主要的试验注册处和 7844 条记录后,我们确定了 178 项注册试验和 38 项描述了 35 项试验的出版物,其中包括 25 项同行评议出版物和 13 项预印本。
提取了试验 ID、注册处、地点、人群、干预措施、对照、研究设计、招募目标、实际招募、结局、数据共享声明以及数据共享时间。
在 178 项注册试验中,112 项(62.92%)在医院环境中进行,计划招募中位数为 100 人(IQR:60,168),其中大多数(n=166,93.26%)未在各自的注册处报告结果。在 35 项已发表的试验中,31 项(88.57%)在医院环境中进行,实际招募中位数为 86 人(IQR:55.5,218),10 项(28.57%)未达到招募目标,27 项试验(77.14%)报告了数据共享计划。
本研究结果突出了 COVID-19 RCT 设计和报告实践中的局限性,并为更有效地报告试验结果、更大程度地增加患者环境的多样性以及更稳健的数据共享提供了指导。