早期SARS-CoV-2治疗和预防试验的信息量有多大?在clinicaltrials.gov上注册的试验的纵向队列分析

Nora Hutchinson, Katarzyna Klas, Benjamin G. Carlisle, Jonathan Kimmelman, Marcin Waligora
{"title":"早期SARS-CoV-2治疗和预防试验的信息量有多大?在clinicaltrials.gov上注册的试验的纵向队列分析","authors":"Nora Hutchinson, Katarzyna Klas, Benjamin G. Carlisle, Jonathan Kimmelman, Marcin Waligora","doi":"10.1101/2021.08.25.21262155","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<strong>Background</strong> Early in the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, commentators warned that some COVID trials were inadequately conceived, designed and reported. Here, we retrospectively assess the prevalence of informative COVID trials launched in the first 6 months of the pandemic.","PeriodicalId":501154,"journal":{"name":"medRxiv - Medical Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How Informative Were Early SARS-CoV-2 Treatment and Prevention Trials? A longitudinal cohort analysis of trials registered on clinicaltrials.gov\",\"authors\":\"Nora Hutchinson, Katarzyna Klas, Benjamin G. Carlisle, Jonathan Kimmelman, Marcin Waligora\",\"doi\":\"10.1101/2021.08.25.21262155\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<strong>Background</strong> Early in the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, commentators warned that some COVID trials were inadequately conceived, designed and reported. Here, we retrospectively assess the prevalence of informative COVID trials launched in the first 6 months of the pandemic.\",\"PeriodicalId\":501154,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"medRxiv - Medical Ethics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-11-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"medRxiv - Medical Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.08.25.21262155\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medRxiv - Medical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.08.25.21262155","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在SARS-CoV-2大流行早期,评论员警告说,一些COVID试验的构思、设计和报告都不充分。在此,我们回顾性地评估了在大流行的前6个月开展的信息丰富的COVID试验的流行情况。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
How Informative Were Early SARS-CoV-2 Treatment and Prevention Trials? A longitudinal cohort analysis of trials registered on clinicaltrials.gov
Background Early in the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, commentators warned that some COVID trials were inadequately conceived, designed and reported. Here, we retrospectively assess the prevalence of informative COVID trials launched in the first 6 months of the pandemic.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they won’t side with the plaintiff: Examining perceptions of liability about AI in radiology Ethics in medical research: A quantitative analysis of the observations of Ethics Committees in research protocols. Ethics practices associated with reusing health data: An assessment of patient registries Simulated Misuse of Large Language Models and Clinical Credit Systems Challenges in Institutional Ethical Review Process and Approval for International Multicenter Clinical Studies in Lower and Middle-Income Countries: the case of PARITY Study
×
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