Primary outcomes and characteristics of clinical trial registries (up to October 2021) on COVID-19 vaccines.

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of evaluation in clinical practice Pub Date : 2024-07-04 DOI:10.1111/jep.14082
Yuri Yokoyama do Nascimento, Matheus Aparecido de Toledo, Daniel Maringelli Pasqui, Rafael L Pacheco, Rachel Riera
{"title":"Primary outcomes and characteristics of clinical trial registries (up to October 2021) on COVID-19 vaccines.","authors":"Yuri Yokoyama do Nascimento, Matheus Aparecido de Toledo, Daniel Maringelli Pasqui, Rafael L Pacheco, Rachel Riera","doi":"10.1111/jep.14082","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To analyse the general and primary outcome-related characteristics of clinical trials protocols on COVID-19 vaccines.</p><p><strong>Study design and setting: </strong>A meta-research study. A search for clinical trial protocols on COVID-19 vaccines was conducted on the ClinicalTrials.gov platform. We considered all protocols of comparative trials registered up to October 26, 2021.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Two hundred and eighty-two trials were analysed. The median expected trial duration was 445 days (interquartile range [IQR] = 225), and the median target sample size was 420 participants (IQR = 1638). A retrospective registry (after the start date) was observed for 42.55% of the trials. Randomization procedures were planned by 84.75% and full-blinding procedures by 34.75% of the 282 trials. Most trials were labelled as active or still recruiting, and 14 trials (5%) were completed. None of the 14 trials labelled as completed on our search date had results available. Industry funding was reported by 198 trials (70.2%). Most studies declared more than one primary outcome, usually a safety or immunogenicity outcome, and 59 studies (20.9%) had at least one primary efficacy outcome. The description of the primary efficacy outcomes was limited in most cases, referred to as a non-specified 'efficacy' outcome (18.6%) or described as 'COVID-19 cases' (32.2%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>the primary outcomes of clinical trials on COVID-19 vaccines are poorly described, and the registers provide insufficient information about them. The registry was retrospectively fulfilled for many trials, which may lead to bias and research waste. Outcomes were generically described and did not provide transparent information for replication in practice, further trials or meta-analyses.</p>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.14082","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To analyse the general and primary outcome-related characteristics of clinical trials protocols on COVID-19 vaccines.

Study design and setting: A meta-research study. A search for clinical trial protocols on COVID-19 vaccines was conducted on the ClinicalTrials.gov platform. We considered all protocols of comparative trials registered up to October 26, 2021.

Results: Two hundred and eighty-two trials were analysed. The median expected trial duration was 445 days (interquartile range [IQR] = 225), and the median target sample size was 420 participants (IQR = 1638). A retrospective registry (after the start date) was observed for 42.55% of the trials. Randomization procedures were planned by 84.75% and full-blinding procedures by 34.75% of the 282 trials. Most trials were labelled as active or still recruiting, and 14 trials (5%) were completed. None of the 14 trials labelled as completed on our search date had results available. Industry funding was reported by 198 trials (70.2%). Most studies declared more than one primary outcome, usually a safety or immunogenicity outcome, and 59 studies (20.9%) had at least one primary efficacy outcome. The description of the primary efficacy outcomes was limited in most cases, referred to as a non-specified 'efficacy' outcome (18.6%) or described as 'COVID-19 cases' (32.2%).

Conclusion: the primary outcomes of clinical trials on COVID-19 vaccines are poorly described, and the registers provide insufficient information about them. The registry was retrospectively fulfilled for many trials, which may lead to bias and research waste. Outcomes were generically described and did not provide transparent information for replication in practice, further trials or meta-analyses.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
COVID-19 疫苗临床试验登记(截至 2021 年 10 月)的主要结果和特征。
研究目的分析 COVID-19 疫苗临床试验方案的一般特征和主要结果相关特征:荟萃研究。我们在 ClinicalTrials.gov 平台上搜索了 COVID-19 疫苗的临床试验方案。我们考虑了截至 2021 年 10 月 26 日注册的所有比较试验方案:结果:分析了 282 项试验。预期试验持续时间的中位数为 445 天(四分位数间距 [IQR] = 225),目标样本量的中位数为 420 人(IQR = 1638)。42.55%的试验进行了回顾性登记(开始日期之后)。在 282 项试验中,84.75% 的试验计划了随机化程序,34.75% 的试验计划了完全盲法程序。大多数试验被标注为正在进行或仍在招募,14 项试验(5%)已经完成。在我们的搜索日期,14 项标注为已完成的试验均未提供结果。198项试验(70.2%)报告了行业资助。大多数研究申报了一个以上的主要结果,通常是安全性或免疫原性结果,59 项研究(20.9%)至少有一个主要疗效结果。结论:COVID-19 疫苗临床试验的主要结果描述不清,登记册提供的相关信息不足。许多试验的登记都是回顾性的,这可能会导致偏差和研究浪费。对结果的描述很笼统,没有为实践复制、进一步试验或荟萃分析提供透明的信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
4.20%
发文量
143
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice aims to promote the evaluation and development of clinical practice across medicine, nursing and the allied health professions. All aspects of health services research and public health policy analysis and debate are of interest to the Journal whether studied from a population-based or individual patient-centred perspective. Of particular interest to the Journal are submissions on all aspects of clinical effectiveness and efficiency including evidence-based medicine, clinical practice guidelines, clinical decision making, clinical services organisation, implementation and delivery, health economic evaluation, health process and outcome measurement and new or improved methods (conceptual and statistical) for systematic inquiry into clinical practice. Papers may take a classical quantitative or qualitative approach to investigation (or may utilise both techniques) or may take the form of learned essays, structured/systematic reviews and critiques.
期刊最新文献
Adaptation of the health literacy survey19-Europe-Q12 into Turkish culture: A psychometric study. The effect of preadmission education given to bariatric surgery patients on postoperative recovery: A randomized controlled study. What is the probability that higher versus lower quality of evidence represents true effects estimates? Effect of evidence-based nursing practices on individualised care: A cross-sectional descriptive study. Mastering meta-analysis in Microsoft Excel with MetaXL add-in: A comprehensive tutorial and guide to meta-analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1