IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0237903.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A systematic review of trial registry entries for randomized clinical trials investigating COVID-19 medical prevention and treatment

Author

Listed:
  • Anders Peder Højer Karlsen
  • Sebastian Wiberg
  • Jens Laigaard
  • Casper Pedersen
  • Kim Zillo Rokamp
  • Ole Mathiesen

Abstract

Aim: To identify investigated interventions for COVID-19 prevention or treatment via trial registry entries on planned or ongoing randomised clinical trials. To assess these registry entries for recruitment status, planned trial size, blinding and reporting of mortality. Methods: We identified trial registry entries systematically via the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and 33 trial registries up to June 23, 2020. We included relevant trial registry entries for randomized clinical trials investigating medical preventive, adjunct or supportive therapies and therapeutics for treatment of COVID-19. Studies with non-random and single-arm design were excluded. Trial registry entries were screened by two authors independently and data were systematically extracted. Results: We included 1303 trial registry entries from 71 countries investigating 381 different single interventions. Blinding was planned in 47% of trials. Sample size was >200 participants in 40% of trials and a total of 611,364 participants were planned for inclusion. Mortality was listed as an outcome in 57% of trials. Recruitment was ongoing in 54% of trials and completed in 8%. Thirty-five percent were multicenter trials. The five most frequent investigational categories were immune modulating drugs (266 trials (20%)), unconventional medicine (167 trials (13%)), antimalarial drugs (118 trials (9%)), antiviral drugs (100 trials (8%)) and respiratory adjuncts (78 trials (6%)). The five most frequently tested uni-modal interventions were: chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine (113 trials with 199,841 participants); convalescent plasma (64 trials with 11,840 participants); stem cells (51 trials with 3,370 participants); tocilizumab (19 trials with 4,139 participants) and favipiravir (19 trials with 3,210 participants). Conclusion: An extraordinary number of randomized clinical trials investigating COVID-19 management have been initiated with a multitude of medical preventive, adjunctive and treatment modalities. Blinding will be used in only 47% of trials, which may have influence on future reported treatment effects. Fifty-seven percent of all trials will assess mortality as an outcome facilitating future meta-analyses.

Suggested Citation

  • Anders Peder Højer Karlsen & Sebastian Wiberg & Jens Laigaard & Casper Pedersen & Kim Zillo Rokamp & Ole Mathiesen, 2020. "A systematic review of trial registry entries for randomized clinical trials investigating COVID-19 medical prevention and treatment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(8), pages 1-13, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0237903
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0237903
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0237903
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0237903&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0237903?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Arthur Eumann Mesas & Iván Cavero-Redondo & Celia Álvarez-Bueno & Marcos Aparecido Sarriá Cabrera & Selma Maffei de Andrade & Irene Sequí-Dominguez & Vicente Martínez-Vizcaíno, 2020. "Predictors of in-hospital COVID-19 mortality: A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis exploring differences by age, sex and health conditions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-23, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0237903. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.