Research Collaboration and Outcome Measures of Interventional Clinical Trial Protocols for Covid-19 in China

Dados Bibliográficos

ID22089656
AutoresYa Gao (0000-0002-4946-9235, Lanzhou University), Kelu Yang (0000-0003-0240-9750, Lanzhou University), Ming Liu (0000-0003-3177-4001, Lanzhou University), Yamin Chen (0000-0002-1610-0650, Lanzhou University), Shuzhen Shi (0000-0002-0841-4270, Lanzhou University), Fengwen Yang (0000-0002-0929-459X, Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, autor correspondente), Jinhui Tian (0000-0002-7082-3569, Lanzhou University, autor correspondente)
Ano2020
Volume8
Páginas554247-554247
Data de publicação2020-09-02
Peer ReviewedSim
Open AccessSim
TipoARTICLE
PeriódicoFrontiers in Public Health (JOURNAL)
Identificadores do periódicoISSN: 2296-2565 • E-ISSN: 2296-2565
EditoraFrontiers Media SA (PUBLISHER • CH)
DOI10.3389/fpubh.2020.554247
PMID32984256
OpenAlexW3082507789
IdiomaEN
Citações recebidas1
Referências citadas13

Background: Research collaboration of registered clinical trials for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains unclear. This study aimed to analyze research collaboration and distribution of outcome measures in registered interventional clinical trials (ICTs) of COVID-19 conducted in China. Methods: The International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, China Clinical Trials Registry, and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched to obtain COVID-19 registered ICTs up to May 25, 2020. Excel 2016 was used to perform a descriptive statistical analysis of the extracted information. VOSviewer 1.6.14 software was used to generate network maps for provinces and institutions and create density maps for outcomes. Results: A total of 390 ICTs were included, and the number of daily registrations fluctuated greatly. 430 institutions from 29 provinces in China contributed to the registration of ICTs. The top three productive provinces were Hubei (160/390, 41.03%), Shanghai (60/390, 15.38%), and Beijing (59/390, 15.13%). The top three productive institutions were Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology (30/390, 7.69%), Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University (18/390, 4.62%), and Wuhan Jinyintan Hospital (18/390, 4.62%). Collaborations between provinces and institutions were not close enough. There were many interventions, but many trials did not provide specific drugs and their dosage and treatment duration. The most frequently used primary outcome was Chest/lung CT (53/390, 13.59%), and the most frequently used secondary outcome was hospital stay (33/390, 8.46%). There was a large difference in the number of outcomes, the expression of some outcomes was not standardized, the measurement time and tools for some outcomes were not clear, and there was a lack of special outcomes for trials of traditional Chinese medicine. Conclusions: Although there were some collaborations between provinces and institutions of the current COVID-19 ICT protocols in China, cooperation between regions should be further strengthened. The identified deficiencies in interventions and outcome measures should be given more attention by future researchers of COVID-19

Beijing · China · Clinical trial · Descriptive statistics · Disease · Family medicine · Geography · Psychological intervention · Statistics · COVID-19 and healthcare impacts · COVID-19 Clinical Research Studies · Long-Term Effects of COVID-19 · Medicine · Nursing · Internal Medicine