ReviewEClinicalMedicine2026
The federated trials approach; an opportunity for global collaboration in health emergencies.
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.
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
10 authors.
Funding
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
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.