A longitudinal cohort study comparing clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov that stopped during the first three years of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic with trials that stopped in the three years prior
Carlisle, B. G.; Hutchinson, N.; Moyer, H.
Show abstract
Background: The global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic disrupted healthcare systems worldwide, raising concerns about its impact on clinical research. Early reports suggested reductions in participant enrollment, interruptions to ongoing trials, and challenges to protocol adherence, yet the magnitude and duration of these operational disruptions remain unclear. Methods: We conducted a registry-based analysis comparing clinical trials during the COVID-19 pandemic (December 2019 to November 2022) with a matched pre-pandemic cohort (December 2016 to November 2019). Studies were included if they reported any modifications to trial status, enrollment, or protocols during the study periods. Key variables included trial stoppage, enrollment changes, and adoption of remote or hybrid procedures. Results: The global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic resulted in widespread disruptions to trial operations with 13,323 clinical trials terminated, suspended or withdrawn over the course of the pandemic, a 38% increase compared to the 9,665 trials that stopped in the 3 years prior to the pandemic. Registries indicated a sharp decline in new participant enrollment across geographic regions and therapeutic areas, with partial recovery in later months. Review findings highlighted barriers including patient inaccessibility, staff redeployment, and supply chain interruptions. Conclusions: The pandemic caused system-wide operational shocks that compromised trial timelines and may have downstream methodological consequences. Recovery in enrollment does not imply restoration of pre-pandemic protocol fidelity or outcome ascertainment. Standardized reporting of disruptions, proactive contingency planning, and resilient trial designs are needed to maintain data integrity during large-scale disruptions and to support reliable evidence generation.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Trials that turn from retrospectively registered to prospectively registered: A cohort study of ‘retroactively prospective’ clinical trial registration using history data 97%
- Development of a consensus extension of the estimands framework for cluster randomised trials (CRT-estimands): results from an international Delphi study 93%
- Number of Interventional Clinical Trials Registered per Million Population per Country Worldwide 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Dynamic methods for ongoing assessment of site-level risk in risk-based monitoring of clinical trials: a scoping review 93%
- Evidence Supporting EMA Drug Approvals (2020-2023): A Cross-Sectional Study of Trial Design and Outcomes 93%
- Design and implementation of the multi-arm, multi-stage Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 (TICO) platform master protocol: An Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV) initiative 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- An Analysis of Controlled Human Infection Studies Registered on ClinicalTrials.gov 96%
- Reporting of Retrospective Registration in Clinical Trial Publications 95%
- Comparison of preprints and final journal publications from COVID-19 Studies: Discrepancies in results reporting and spin in interpretation 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Results reporting for clinical trials led by medical universities and university hospitals in the Nordic countries was often missing or delayed 97%
- Results dissemination from clinical trials conducted at German university medical centres was delayed and incomplete 96%
- Clinical Trials in COVID-19 Management & Prevention: A Meta-epidemiological Study examining methodological quality 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- How Informative Were Early SARS-CoV-2 Treatment and Prevention Trials? A longitudinal cohort analysis of trials registered on clinicaltrials.gov 98%
- Exploring scalable assessment methods for terminated trials in ClinicalTrials.gov: A cohort analysis of German and Californian trials 97%
- Analysis of clinical trial registry entry histories using the novel R package cthist 95%
"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.