Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33376364›Full record

ReviewInfection and drug resistance2020

The Landscape of Emerging Randomized Clinical Trial Evidence for COVID-19 Disease Stages: A Systematic Review of Global Trial Registries.

Alison Dillman, Michael J Zoratti, Jay J H Park, Grace Hsu, Louis Dron, Gerald Smith, Ofir Harari, Craig R Rayner, Noor-E Zannat, Alind Gupta and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Infection and drug resistance, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 31% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Inhaled ciclesonide for outpatient treatment of COVID-19 in adults at risk of adverse outcomes: a randomised controlled trial (COVERAGE).Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases · 2022
    Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Informed decisions about public health and social measures.Health research policy and systems · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

14 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Alison DillmanSchool of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, England.
Michael J ZorattiDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Jay J H ParkDepartment of Experimental Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Grace HsuDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-7191-6612
Louis DronDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Gerald SmithDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Ofir HarariDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-2901-0558
Craig R RaynerMonash Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Noor-E ZannatDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Alind GuptaDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Eric MackayDepartment of Statistical Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Paul AroraDalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Zelyn LeeDepartment of Physiology & Department of Neuroscience, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-7456-2554
Edward J MillsDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Impact · CAUniversity of Toronto · CAImperial College London · GBMonash University · AUUniversity of British Columbia · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeA multitude of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have emerged in response to the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Understanding the distribution of trials among various settings is important to guide future research priorities and efforts. The purpose of this review was to describe the emerging evidence base of COVID-19 RCTs by stages of disease progression, from pre-exposure to hospitalization.

methodsWe collated trial data across international registries: ClinicalTrials.gov; International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Registry; Chinese Clinical Trial Registry; Clinical Research Information Service; EU Clinical Trials Register; Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials; Japan Primary Registries Network; German Clinical Trials Register (up to 7 October 2020). Active COVID-19 RCTs in international registries were eligible for inclusion. We extracted trial status, intervention(s), control, sample size, and clinical context to generate descriptive frequencies, network diagram illustrations, and statistical analyses including odds ratios and the Mann-Whitney

resultsOur search identified 11503 clinical trials registered for COVID-19 and identified 2388 RCTs. After excluding 45 suspended RCTs and 480 trials with unclear or unreported disease stages, 1863 active RCTs were included and categorized into four broad disease stages: pre-exposure (n=107); post-exposure (n=208); outpatient treatment (n=266); hospitalization, including the intensive care unit (n=1376). Across all disease stages, most trials had two arms (n=1500/1863, 80.52%), most often included (hydroxy)chloroquine (n=271/1863, 14.55%) and were US-based (n=408/1863, 21.90%). US-based trials had lower odds of including (hydroxy)chloroquine than trials in other countries (OR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.45-0.90) and similar odds of having two arms compared to other geographic regions (OR: 1.05, 95% CI: 0.80-1.38).

conclusionThere is a marked difference in the number of trials across settings, with limited studies on non-hospitalized persons. Focus on pre- and post-exposure, and outpatients, is worthwhile as a means of reducing infections and lessening the health, social, and economic burden of COVID-19.

Indexed as

COVID-19novel coronavirus 2019randomized controlled trialssystematic review

Identifiers

PMID33376364
PMCPMC7764888
OpenAlexW3115653746

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.