scholarly journals Systematic Reviews Published in Emergency Medicine Journals Do Not Routinely Search Clinical Trials Registries: A Cross-Sectional Analysis

2015 ◽  
Vol 66 (4) ◽  
pp. 424-427.e2 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lukas G. Keil ◽  
Timothy F. Platts-Mills ◽  
Christopher W. Jones
BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. e039978 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hemalkumar B Mehta ◽  
Stephan Ehrhardt ◽  
Thomas J Moore ◽  
Jodi B Segal ◽  
G Caleb Alexander

ObjectivesThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has prompted many initiatives to identify safe and efficacious treatments, yet little is known regarding where early efforts have focused. We aimed to characterise registered clinical trials assessing drugs or plasma treatments for COVID-19.Design, setting and participantsCross-sectional analysis of clinical trials for the treatment of COVID-19 that were registered in the USA or in countries contributing to the WHO’s International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Relevant trial entries of drugs or plasma were downloaded on 26 March 2020, deduplicated, verified with reviews of major medical journals and WHO websites and independently analysed by two reviewers.Main outcome(s)Trial intervention, sponsorship, critical design elements and specified outcomesResultsOverall, 201 clinical trials were registered for testing the therapeutic benefits of 92 drugs or plasma, including 64 in monotherapy and 28 different combinations. Only eight (8.7%) products or combinations involved new molecular entities. The other test therapies had a wide range of prior medical uses, including as antivirals, antimalarials, immunosuppressants and oncology treatments. In 152 trials (75.7%), patients were randomised to treatment or comparator, including 55 trials with some form of blinding and 97 open-label studies. The 49 (24.4%) of trials without a randomised design included 29 single armed studies and 20 trials with some comparison group. Most trial designs featured multiple endpoints. Clinical endpoints were identified in 134 (66.7%) of trials and included COVID-19 symptoms, death, recovery, required intensive care and hospital discharge. Clinical scales were being used in 33 (16.4%) trials, most often measures of oxygenation and critical illness. Surrogate endpoints or biomarkers were studied in 88 (42.3%) of trials, primarily assays of viral load. Although the trials were initiated in more than 17 countries or regions, 100 (49.8%) were registered in China and 78 (37.8%) in the USA. Registered trials increased rapidly, with the number of registered trials doubling from 1 March to 26 March 2020.ConclusionsWhile accelerating morbidity and mortality from the COVID-19 pandemic has been paralleled by early and rapid clinical investigation, many trials lack features to optimise their scientific value. Global coordination and increased funding of high-quality research may help to maximise scientific progress in rapidly discovering safe and effective treatments.


10.2196/11924 ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (12) ◽  
pp. e11924 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mustafa Al-Durra ◽  
Robert P Nolan ◽  
Emily Seto ◽  
Joseph A Cafazzo ◽  
Gunther Eysenbach

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alaa Abou Khzam

Background. Studies with positive findings are more likely to be published compared to those with negative findings. Therefore the latter studies are often disregarded in systematic reviews. This causes an overestimation of a treatment effect size which leads to a misinterpretation of the evidence. Searching clinical trial registries in systematic reviews is a useful source to retrieve unpublished clinical trials leading to the reduction of publication bias. Previous studies in the literature reported inconsistent searching of clinical trial registries in systematic reviews published in several medical fields. Searching clinical trial registries in physical therapy is still unknown. The aim of this cross-sectional analysis is to evaluate the extent of clinical trial registry searching in physical therapy interventional systematic reviews. Methods. Systematic reviews published between January 2017 and January 2018 were retrieved from five reputable physical therapy journals. Interventional systematic reviews that were coherent with the inclusion criteria were included in the analysis. Results. The search yielded 40 systematic reviews. Among these 19 were interventional systematic reviews as well as being consistent with the inclusion criteria and thus were considered for the analysis. After reviewing their search methodology, only two reviews (10.5%) reported searching at least one clinical trial registry. Discussion. The results of this study suggest poor searching of clinical trial registries in physical therapy systematic reviews. Due to the limitations of this study, further research analyzing large samples of interventional physical therapy systematic reviews is required.


2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 100284
Author(s):  
Arjun K. Reddy ◽  
Kaley Lulkovich ◽  
Ryan Ottwell ◽  
Wade Arthur ◽  
Aaron Bowers ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document