ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2020
A scientificity and feasibility evaluation of COVID-19 clinical studies registered in China.
Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Characteristics and result reporting of registered COVID-19 clinical trials of Chinese and Indian traditional medicine: A comparative analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- A bibliometric analysis of the application of artificial intelligence to advance individualized diagnosis and treatment of critical illness.Annals of translational medicine · 2022Article
- Letter to the Editor: "The impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the initiation of interventional clinical trials conducted in intensive care units".Journal of critical care · 2022Article
- PROSPERO's systematic review protocols of traditional Chinese medicine for COVID-19: An overview.Integrative medicine research · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAn outbreak of novel coronavirus infection in Wuhan, China, in early 2020 has now developed into a worldwide pandemic. Researchers in China and around the world have conducted many clinical studies on the scientific response to infectious diseases. Here, we review and summarize the registration protocols for clinical research of the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19).
methodsWe searched all the registered studies in all platforms under the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) of the World Health Organization (WHO) before March 11, 2020, screened the registration scheme for novel coronavirus, extracted the basic research information, research quality, feasibility information, and described the scientificity and feasibility of interventional research.
resultsFrom January 23, 2020 to March 11, 2020, 379 clinical studies were registered, 260 were therapeutic studies among them, and 96.8% studies were conducted in China by Chinese researchers. Some studies were registered 2 weeks just after the virus was identified, and up to 22 studies registered for one day. The number of interventional studies was greater than observational studies (263
conclusionsCOVID-19 clinical study registration has been considerable, rapid, and high quality in study design. However, the feasibility of these studies may still be problematic, especially in such as insufficient sample size, poor coordination among multidisciplinary teams, and weak quality control in the research process.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.