Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40678698›Full record

ReviewEClinicalMedicine2025

PEARLES challenges and solutions to the implementation of clinical research responses to epidemics and pandemics: a scoping review.

Branagh Crealock-Ashurst, Shanthi Levanita, Sandrena Ruth Frischer, Sophia Adhikari, Winnie Mwebia, Zaharat Kadri-Alabi, Laura Davidson, Lisha Jeena, Megan Evans, Gabriella Morley and 4 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in EClinicalMedicine, 2025. 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. Review
  2. Article
  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

14 authors.

Branagh Crealock-AshurstGloPID-R Research and Policy Team, Policy and Practice Research Group, Pandemic Sciences Institute, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Shanthi LevanitaGloPID-R Research and Policy Team, Policy and Practice Research Group, Pandemic Sciences Institute, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Sandrena Ruth FrischerGloPID-R Research and Policy Team, Policy and Practice Research Group, Pandemic Sciences Institute, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Sophia AdhikariGloPID-R Research and Policy Team, Policy and Practice Research Group, Pandemic Sciences Institute, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Winnie MwebiaGloPID-R Research and Policy Team, Policy and Practice Research Group, Pandemic Sciences Institute, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Zaharat Kadri-AlabiGloPID-R Research and Policy Team, Policy and Practice Research Group, Pandemic Sciences Institute, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Laura DavidsonGloPID-R Research and Policy Team, Policy and Practice Research Group, Pandemic Sciences Institute, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Lisha JeenaGloPID-R Research and Policy Team, Policy and Practice Research Group, Pandemic Sciences Institute, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Megan EvansHealth Education England East Midlands, UK.
Gabriella MorleyNational Health Service (NHS), UK.
Eli HarrissBodleian Health Care Libraries, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Gail CarsonGloPID-R Research and Policy Team, Policy and Practice Research Group, Pandemic Sciences Institute, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Alice NortonGloPID-R Research and Policy Team, Policy and Practice Research Group, Pandemic Sciences Institute, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Louise SigfridGloPID-R Research and Policy Team, Policy and Practice Research Group, Pandemic Sciences Institute, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Conducting clinical research in response to infectious disease outbreaks presents unique challenges. In a previous review, we identified a range of political, economic, administrative, regulatory, logistical, ethical and social (PEARLES) challenges and proposed solutions to effective implementation of outbreak research responses. Following the COVID-19 pandemic, we conducted an update to explore if solutions recommended had been implemented, or new challenges identified. We searched seven databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Global Health, Embase, and PsycINFO, Scopus, Epistemonikos, Google Scholar) and grey literature from 01/06/2018 to 28/09/2023 for studies presenting PEARLES challenges/solutions to epi/pandemic research responses. Of 12,652 records, 191 were included. Our review identified many persisting challenges, particularly the lack of international research co-ordination, pre-planned research strategies, and limited research infrastructure in resource deprived settings. While some solutions were implemented, many remain recommendations e.g. pre-prepared regulatory guidelines and protocols, research infrastructure investment and international research coordination. Our data shows an urgent need to address challenges identified, implement and evaluate recommended solutions, to strengthen global health security to new and (re-) emerging epidemics and pandemics.

Indexed as

ChallengesEpidemicsPandemicsPEARLESPreparednessPriority diseasesResearch responseSolutions

Identifiers

PMID40678698
PMCPMC12269452

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.