SynthesisEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2025
Features and results availability of non-commercial Spanish COVID-19 trials: a systematic review of clinical trial registers and corresponding literature.
Synthesis in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to characterize non-commercial Spanish COVID-19 trials and to determine the availability of results. Differences in outcomes according to the interventions assessed (medicines, non-medicines) will also be determined.
methodsThis systematic review was conducted in March 2024 by searching non-commercial Spanish COVID-19 trials on four registers (EUCTR, Clinical. TRIALS: gov, ISRCTN, DRKS) and the WHO ICTRP. Phase-1 medicines trials were excluded. Several variables were retrieved from registers. Publication of main trial results were searched on PubMed, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and Google Scholar. Journals' impact factor and articles' citations on Google Scholar were also registered. Results from medicines and non-medicines trials extracted from registers and articles were compared.
resultsA total of 170 trials (57.1% medicines trials) were identified. These 170 trials were randomized (87.1%), masked (41.8%), or multicenter (39.4%); a total of 15,555 participants were enrolled, mostly in small trials (median, n = 88). Only 8.8% (15/170) of trials posted results on the registers; only 47.6% (81/170) of trials had either published results or posted them on registers. Publications accounted for 92.6% (75/81) of these. Articles were published in 56 different journals, had a median impact factor of 4.4 and a median of 10 citations. Most (58.7%, 44/75) described negative results. There were statistically significant differences (p < 0.001) between medicines and non-medicines trials on timely registration and on being multicenter. This was also the case among published trials with respect to negative results of the primary endpoint.
conclusionAlthough most trials were randomized, a minority were multicenter, large, or masked. Trial results should be posted on the registers to make them accessible to everyone.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39789343What 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.