Back

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.

2026-05-22 public and global health
10.64898/2026.05.20.26353581 medRxiv
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pandemic resulted in widespread disruptions to trial operations with 13,323 clinical trials terminated, suspended or withdrawn over the course of the pandemic, a 38% increase compared to the 9,665 trials that stopped in the 3 years prior to the pandemic.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 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 17%
10.6%
2
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
8.5%
3
Trials
25 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
7.3%
4
Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.9%
5
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
61 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
4.9%
6
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 4%
4.4%
7
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.0%
8
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
45 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
3.6%
50% of probability mass above
9
Journal of General Internal Medicine
20 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.6%
10
BMJ
49 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.4%
11
Annals of Internal Medicine
27 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.1%
12
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
13
BMC Medical Research Methodology
43 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.1%
14
JMIRx Med
31 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.9%
15
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
28 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
16
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 41%
1.7%
17
Clinical and Translational Science
21 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
18
BMC Health Services Research
42 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
19
The Lancet Public Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.3%
20
Scientific Data
174 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
21
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.2%
22
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
23
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.9%
24
Clinical Infectious Diseases
231 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
25
Journal of Clinical and Translational Science
11 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
26
PLOS Global Public Health
293 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
27
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 63%
0.8%
28
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 75%
0.7%
29
FACETS
11 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%
30
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
134 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%