Aller au contenu principal
Accès ouvert déclaré 2021 article

1477The landscape of COVID-19 trials in Australia

0Citations signalées, ce qui n’est pas une note de qualité
1Institutions déclarées
1Pays d’affiliation déclarés

Rattachement africain : au. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.

Le résumé fourni par la source

Abstract Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has seen a large number of clinical trials launched at unprecedented speed. We aimed to explore the landscape of COVID-19 trials in Australia, and to what extent Australian researchers have responded to global need for coordination and collaboration. Methods We systematically searched the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) and ClinicalTrials.gov from 1st January to 16th November 2020. We included all interventional studies addressing prevention, diagnosis or treatment of COVID-19, recruiting in Australia. We analysed the number and size of trials, additional recruitment countries, funding, trial purpose, study design, data sharing plans, and collection of COVID-19 core outcomes. Results We identified 56 COVID-19 trials, targeting 33,757 participants. They evaluated drugs (n = 34, 61%), vaccines (n = 10, 18%) or other interventions (n = 12, 21%), e.g. ventilators, digital health. Median target sample size was 150 (Q1-Q3=33-395). Only two trials utilised adaptive methods (Bayesian designs), and of the 34 COVID-19 treatment trials, only one included all core outcomes. Most (80%) indicated they were not planning to share data. Conclusions There has been impressive research scale-up and innovation in drug development and digital health, but fast-track procedures may have impacted scientific rigor and research prioritisation. Trials often lacked innovative study designs, were underpowered for clinical outcomes, collected limited core outcomes and did not intend to share data, precluding future evidence synthesis. Key messages The research response in Australia has been rapid, but better coordination is required. Infrastructure for innovation would support coordination of research efforts, and reduce research waste.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.

Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert

DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.

Titre Crossref
1477The landscape of COVID-19 trials in Australia
Date Crossref
01/09/2021
Éditeur
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Type
journal-article

Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.

Les institutions déclarées

Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.

Les sujets associés

Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeDelphi Technique in ResearchMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

BNTIC News n’est pas le producteur de ces données. Les publications sont interrogées à la demande dans Crossref, OpenAIRE, DOAJ, Europe PMC, HAL, DataCite, AfricArXiv, ROR et la Banque mondiale, sans clé d’accès. OpenAlex reste optionnel. Aucun service payant n’est nécessaire et aucune donnée externe n’est enregistrée en base. Consulter les sources et leurs limites.