Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41783088›Full record

ReviewEClinicalMedicine2026

The federated trials approach; an opportunity for global collaboration in health emergencies.

Inge Christoffer Olsen, Lu Zheng, Skerdi Haviari, Alain Amstutz, Yazdan Yazdanpanah, Franz König, Thomas R Fleming, Matthias Briel, UNITY/MPX-RESPONSE Study Group, STOMP Study Group

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in EClinicalMedicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

10 authors.

Inge Christoffer OlsenDepartment of Research Support for Clinical Trials, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Lu ZhengDepartment of Biostatistics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.
Skerdi HaviariUniversité Paris Cité, Inserm, IAME, Paris, 75018, France.
Alain AmstutzDepartment of Research Support for Clinical Trials, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Yazdan YazdanpanahUniversité Paris Cité, Inserm, IAME, Paris, 75018, France.
Franz KönigInstitute of Medical Statistics, Center for Medical Data Science, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Thomas R FlemingDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Matthias BrielCLEAR Methods Center, Division of Clinical Epidemiology, Department Clinical Research, University Hospital Basel and University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
UNITY/MPX-RESPONSE Study Group
STOMP Study Group

Funding

Leadership and Operations Center (LOC), AIDS Clinical Trials Group (ACTG); LOC 1/UM1AI068636 · NIAID · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI Joseph J Eron, RAJESH T GANDHI · 2011 to 2026
$1073.1M
Statistical and Data Management Center (SDMC), AIDS Clinical Trials Group (ACTG)UM1AI068634 · NIAID · HARVARD UNIVERSITY D/B/A HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH · PI Marlene Ann Cooper, Michael David Hughes · 2011 to 2026
$246.6M
UCSD Department of Medicine HIV/AIDS Clinical Trials UnitUM1AI069432 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI TIMOTHY J. WILKIN · 2012 to 2026
$50.4M
NIAID NIH HHS UM1 AI068634NIAID NIH HHS UM1 AI068636NIAID NIH HHS UM1 AI069432
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The gold standard for providing confirmatory evidence to regulatory agencies is a single sponsor conducting a randomised, controlled clinical trial (RCT). But emerging situations like the mpox outbreak can complicate launching large, single, global trials that meet the needs of multiple stakeholders, including multinational funders and regulators. Drawing on lessons from the mpox outbreak, we propose an alternative approach: the federated trial design. This approach ensures that individual trials launch quickly and that a rigorous, prespecified, conjoined analysis using combined data supports joint regulatory decisions. Early engagement with regulatory agencies is crucial to arranging such a conjoined analysis. Federating trials can support regulatory decision-making when they include a prespecified conjoined analysis that is sufficiently rigorous. Essential steps include harmonising individual trial protocols, aligning data standards, and arranging for a single Data Monitoring Committee to review a combined, multi-trial analysis. The classical single-trial approach remains the gold standard, but investigators should consider federated trials in emergencies that complicate conducting single trials. In such crises, investigators need to explain clearly why standalone evidence from participating RCTs is not obtainable. The federated trials design cannot replace the classical design, but can provide timely, robust evidence in crises such as public health emergencies.

Indexed as

Conjoined analysisData monitoring committeeFederated trialsPublic health emergenciesRegulatory decision-making

Identifiers

PMID41783088
PMCPMC12955581

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.