ArticleContemporary clinical trials communications2026
Considerations raised during the regulatory and ethics review of platform clinical trials in infectious diseases.
Article in Contemporary clinical trials communications, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Platform trials can address more than one clinical research question simultaneously and allow for the addition or removal of arms over time. The scientific and operational complexity of platform trials may give rise to specific challenges. In this study, we evaluate the considerations raised during the regulatory and ethics review of five infectious disease platform trials. Methods: Considerations raised during the review of five platform trials (ECRAID-Prime, RECOVERY, RECLAIM, REMAP-CAP, and SNAP) between 31 January 2022 and 28 March 2025, and sponsor responses were analyzed using content analysis. A single consideration could include multiple questions or remarks, and these were each treated as individual comments in the analysis. Results: Findings were categorized under four main themes: (i) clinical trial application, (ii) recruitment and informed consent, (iii) participant safety and data protection, and (iv) methodology. We identified 1218 comments, of which 93 (7.6%) specifically related to the platform trial design. Related to the methodology, regulators frequently requested more details about interim analyses, including triggers, correction for multiplicity, and stopping rules. Conclusions: Less than 10% of the comments was directly related to the platform trial design. These were usually resolved by providing additional explanation. No comments were identified in areas where feedback was anticipated by the research team, such as response adaptive randomization or confidentiality of interim results. Effective evaluation of platform trials requires sponsors to highlight platform trial-specific features in clinical trial applications, and for regulatory bodies to be adequately prepared to evaluate them.
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.