Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32483523›Full record

ReviewIntegrative medicine research2020

Characteristics of registered studies for Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): A systematic review.

Ming Yang, Ya-Xi Shang, Zi-Yu Tian, Min Xiong, Chun-Li Lu, Yue Jiang, Yao Zhang, Ying-Ying Zhang, Xin-Yan Jin, Qiu-Bai Jin and 3 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Integrative medicine research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Ming YangCentre for Evidence-based Chinese Medicine, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China.
Ya-Xi ShangCentre for Evidence-based Chinese Medicine, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China.
Zi-Yu TianCentre for Evidence-based Chinese Medicine, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China.
Min XiongCentre for Evidence-based Chinese Medicine, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China.
Chun-Li LuCentre for Evidence-based Chinese Medicine, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China.
Yue JiangCentre for Evidence-based Chinese Medicine, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China.
Yao ZhangSchool of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China.
Ying-Ying ZhangCentre for Evidence-based Chinese Medicine, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China.
Xin-Yan JinThird Affiliated Hospital, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China.
Qiu-Bai JinDongzhimen Hospital, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China.
Ying ZhangCentre for Evidence-based Chinese Medicine, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China.
Merlin L WillcoxSchool of Primary Care, Population Sciences and Medical Education, University of Southampton, Aldermoor Health Centre, Aldermoor Close, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Jian-Ping LiuCentre for Evidence-based Chinese Medicine, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe World Health Organization characterized the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as a pandemic on March 11th. Many clinical trials on COVID-19 have been registered, and we aim to review the study characteristics and provide guidance for future trials to avoid duplicated effort.

methodsStudies on COVID-19 registered before March 3rd, 2020 on eight registry platforms worldwide were searched and the data of design, participants, interventions, and outcomes were extracted and analyzed.

resultsThree hundred and ninety-three studies were identified and 380 (96.7%) were from mainland China, while 3 in Japan, 3 in France, 2 in the US, and 3 were international collaborative studies. Two hundred and sixty-six (67.7%) aimed at therapeutic effect, others were for prevention, diagnosis, prognosis, etc. Two hundred and two studies (51.4%) were randomized controlled trials. Two third of therapeutic studies tested Western medicines including antiviral drugs (17.7%), stem cell and cord blood therapy (10.2%), chloroquine and derivatives (8.3%), 16 (6.0%) on Chinese medicines, and 73 (27.4%) on integrated therapy of Western and Chinese medicines. Thirty-one studies among 266 therapeutic studies (11.7%) used mortality as primary outcome, while the most designed secondary outcomes were symptoms and signs (47.0%). Half of the studies (45.5%) had not started recruiting till March 3rd.

conclusionInappropriate outcome setting, delayed recruitment and insufficient numbers of new cases in China implied many studies may fail to complete. Strategies and protocols of the studies with robust and rapid data sharing are warranted for emergency public health events, helping the timely evidence-based decision-making.

Indexed as

COVID-19Public health emergencyTherapeutic effectTrial characteristicsTrial registration

Identifiers

PMID32483523
PMCPMC7239016

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.