Outcome reporting from protocols of clinical trials of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): a review
Qiu, R.; Wei, X.; Zhao, M.; Zhong, C.; Zhao, C.; Hu, J.; Li, M.; Huang, Y.; Han, S.; He, T.; Chen, J.; Shang, H.
Show abstract
ObjectivesTo examine heterogeneity of outcomes in protocols of clinical trials of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) and to identify outcomes for prioritization in developing a core outcome set (COS) in this field. DesignThis study is a review. Data sourcesDatabases of ICMJE-accepted clinical trial registry platform were searched on February 14, 2020. Eligibility CriteriaRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs of COVID-19 were considered. Conditions of patients include common type, severe type or critical type. Interventions include traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) and Western medicine. We excluded trials that for discharged patients, psychological intervention and complications of COVID-19. Data extraction and synthesisThe general information and outcomes, outcome measurement instruments and measurement times were extracted. The results were analysed by descriptive analysis. Results19 registry platforms were searched. A total of 97 protocols were included from 160 protocols. For protocols of TCM clinical trials, 76 outcomes from 16 outcome domains were reported, and almost half (34/76, 44.74%) of outcomes were reported only once; the most frequently reported outcome was time of SARS-CoV-2 RNA turns to negative. 27 (27/76, 35.53%) outcomes were provided one or more outcome measurement instruments. 10 outcomes were provided one or more measurement time frame. For protocols of western medicine clinical trials, 126 outcomes from 17 outcome domains were reported; almost half (62/126, 49.21%) of outcomes were reported only once; the most frequently reported outcome was proportion of patients with negative SARS-CoV-2. 27 outcomes were provided one or more outcome measurement instruments. 40 (40/126, 31.75%) outcomes were provided one or more measurement time frame. ConclusionOutcome reporting in protocols of clinical trials of COVID-19 is inconsistent. Thus, developing a core outcome set is necessary. Strengths and limitations of this study1. This review is the first to describe variation in outcomes, outcome measurement instruments and outcome measurement time reporting in clinical trials for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). 2. All the database of ICMJE-accepted clinical trial registry platform were searched, and randomized controlled trials and observational studies were considered. 4. The aim of this review was to provide a list of outcomes for clinical trials of COVID-19, both interventions of Traditional Chinese Medicine and western medicine were considered. 5. When the searching was conducted, no clinical trials were registered by countries out of China, so all of included protocols were from China.
Matching journals
The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Modelling the impact of behavioural interventions during pandemics: A systematic review 94%
- Efficacy of Acupuncture on Lower Limb Motor Dysfunction Following Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. 94%
- Factors Associated with Disease Severity and Mortality among Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Face-to-face interventions to encourage enrolment in cardiac rehabilitation; a scoping review protocol 94%
- Favipiravir for treating novel coronavirus (COVID-19) patients: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled trials 93%
- Comparison of preprints and final journal publications from COVID-19 Studies: Discrepancies in results reporting and spin in interpretation 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Studies of Novel Coronavirus Disease 19 (COVID-19) Pandemic: A Global Analysis of Literature 94%
- The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on hospital services for patients with cardiac diseases: a scoping review 92%
- Non-pharmacological therapies for post-viral syndromes, including Long COVID: A systematic review 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Repurposing Existing Medications for Coronavirus Disease 2019: Protocol for a Rapid and Living Systematic Review 93%
- Evidence-Based, Cost-Effective Interventions To Suppress The COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review 91%
- Quantification of the association between predisposing health conditions, demographic, and behavioural factors with hospitalisation, intensive care unit admission, and death from COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Guideline-based Chinese herbal medicine treatment plus standard care for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (G-CHAMPS): evidence from China 94%
- Jinhua Qinggan Granules for Nonhospitalized COVID-19 Patients: a Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Randomized Controlled Trial 94%
- Mortality and Severity in COVID-19 Patients on ACEIs & ARBs - A Meta-Regression Analysis 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.