From registration, protocol to report: are COVID-19-related RCTs in mainland China consistent? A systematic review of clinical trial registry and literature

从注册、方案到报告:中国大陆与 COVID-19 相关的随机对照试验是否一致?一项基于临床试验注册库和文献的系统评价

阅读:1

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To provide a comprehensive review of registered COVID-19-related randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in mainland China and evaluate the transparency of reporting through comparison of registrations, protocols and full reports. DESIGN: Systematic review of trial registrations and publications. DATA SOURCES: International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ClinicalTrials.gov, the ISRCTN registry and EU Clinical Trial Register were accessed on 1 February 2022. Publications were searched in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, CNKI.net and Wanfangdata from 10 February 2022 to 12 February 2022. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Eligible trials were COVID-19 related RCTs carried out in mainland China. Observational studies, non-randomised trials and single-arm trials were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data from registrations, publications and performed risk of bias assessment for trial reports. Information provided by registrations and publications was compared. The findings were summarised with descriptive statistics. RESULTS: The number of eligible studies was 415. From these studies 20 protocols and 77 RCT reports were published. Seven trials published both protocol and RCT full report. Between registrations and publications, discrepancy or omission was found in sample size (7, 35.0% for protocols and 47, 61.0% for reports, same below), trial setting (13, 65.0% and 43, 55.8%), inclusion criteria (12, 60.0% and 57, 74.0%), exclusion criteria (10, 50.0% and 54, 70.1%), masking method (9, 45.0% and 35, 45.5%) and primary outcome or time frame of primary outcome measurement (14, 70.0% and 51, 66.2%). Between protocols and full reports, 5 (71.4%) reports had discrepancy in primary outcome or time frame of primary outcome measurement. CONCLUSIONS: Discrepancy among registrations, protocols and reports revealed compromised transparency in reporting of COVID-19-related RCTs in mainland China. The importance of trial registration should be further emphasised to enhance transparent RCT reporting.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。