Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35045363›Full record

ArticleContemporary clinical trials2022

The use of telecommunication and virtualization among ongoing and discontinued COVID-19 clinical trials: A cross-sectional analysis.

Mary C Greenough, Nicholas B Sajjadi, Brayden Rucker, Matt Vassar, Micah Hartwell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Contemporary clinical trials, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. 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

5 authors.

Mary C GreenoughOffice for Research Development and Scholarly Activity, University of Oklahoma, School of Community Medicine, Tulsa, OK, United States of America.
Nicholas B SajjadiOffice of Medical Student Research, College of Osteopathic Medicine, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, OK, United States of America. Electronic address: nicholas.sajjadi@okstate.edu.
Brayden RuckerOffice of Medical Student Research, College of Osteopathic Medicine, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, OK, United States of America.
Matt VassarOffice of Medical Student Research, College of Osteopathic Medicine, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, OK, United States of America; Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, College of Osteopathic Medicine, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, OK, United States of America.
Micah HartwellOffice of Medical Student Research, College of Osteopathic Medicine, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, OK, United States of America; Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, College of Osteopathic Medicine, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, OK, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

importanceThe COVID-19 pandemic has impacted clinical research due to safety measures such as social distancing and lockdowns. However, developing treatments for COVID-19 relies on conducting clinical trials. Using telemedicine or virtual methods may support ongoing trials and limit the pandemic's impact on clinical research.

objectiveTo examine the use of virtual methods among ongoing and discontinued COVID-19 clinical trials.

designIn this cross-sectional analysis, we performed a systematic search of ClinicalTrials.gov for COVID-19 related trials registered since the pandemic began. In masked, duplicate fashion, authors extracted data from included studies, noting whether trialists reported using telecommunication, virtualization, or remote data collection to deliver interventions and monitor outcome measures. The authors also coded the use of virtual methods for recruitment, enrollment, or follow-up visits. Chi-square tests and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to assess differences in the use of virtual methods between ongoing and discontinued studies and differences between intervention types.

resultsOur search returned 2549 clinical trials, of which 2383 were included. Of included studies, 2109 (88.5%) were ongoing and 274 (11.5%) were discontinued. Overall, 519 (24.6%) ongoing COVID-19 trials reported using virtual methods for trial conduct and 43 (15.7%) discontinued trials reported using virtual methods. There was a statistically significant difference in the rate of reporting virtual methods between discontinued and ongoing trials (X CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The COVID-19 pandemic has presented an unprecedented need for safe and efficient clinical trial conduct. Nearly a quarter of ongoing COVID-19 clinical trials in our sample reported using virtual methods for supporting trial progress. Ongoing trials were more likely to report virtual methods compared to discontinued trials. Developing strategies that allow for continuing trials during emergencies may limit trial disruption. Exploring and developing remote trial methods may continue to be valuable in light of emerging COVID-19 variants and may persist beyond the pandemic.

Indexed as

COVID-19TelemedicineCommunicable Disease ControlCross-Sectional StudiesHumansPandemicsSARS-CoV-2Clinical TrialsCOVID-19Remote Data CollectionTelemedicineVirtualization

Identifiers

PMID35045363
PMCPMC8761257

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.