ArticleContemporary clinical trials2026
Clinical trial coordination of multifaceted ethical and regulatory oversight entities during the COVID-19 public health emergency.
Article in Contemporary clinical trials, 2026. 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
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We implemented two outpatient randomized controlled trials of COVID-19 convalescent plasma during the COVID-19 public health crisis. Unique challenges included how to maneuver all the moving parts to precipitously mobilize and guide clinical teams and facilities through multiple review groups, to reach multiple target populations, and to share trial results. We describe how a flexible clinical trial coordinating center team approached and robustly coordinated multiple regulatory agencies and protocol changes to keep up with rapidly changing pandemic conditions and knowledge. Four agencies oversaw ethical and regulatory reviews for 26 participating sites, two protocols, and two master informed consent forms, in English and Spanish, through a two-month start-up cycle and 68 protocol and consent form changes, culminating in a national conversation of positive trial results presented in a public forum by the site investigators to trial participants. Ethical and regulatory reviews were at a faster than usual pace, sites were ready to activate in 12-15 days, and about 2 % of those transfused used Spanish language materials. Although these extraordinary practices cannot become standard, they can provide lessons for normal and emergency trial conduct. From a clinical trial coordinating center viewpoint, we recommend developing emergency interagency standard operating procedures (SOPs) for coordinating protocol reviews and emergency ceding guidelines among agencies when multiple regulatory reviews are required. English and non-English Informed Consent Forms (ICFs) developed centrally and in parallel and including a return of trial results to participants as a contact option should help trials improve participant-centered outreach.
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.