Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35715728›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2022

Standard of care for COVID-19 in randomized clinical trials registered in trial registries and published in preprint servers and scholarly journals: a cross-sectional study.

Mahir Fidahic, Danijela Nujic, Marta Civljak, Renata Runjic, Filipa Markotic, Marin Vidak, Livia Puljak

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Mahir FidahicFaculty of Medicine, University of Tuzla, Tuzla, Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Danijela NujicDepartment of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Osijek, Croatia.
Marta CivljakCenter for Evidence-Based Medicine and Health Care, Catholic University of Croatia, Ilica 242, 10000, Zagreb, Croatia.
Renata RunjicUniversity of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia.
Filipa MarkoticMedical School, University of Mostar, Mostar, Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Marin VidakUniversity of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia.
Livia PuljakCenter for Evidence-Based Medicine and Health Care, Catholic University of Croatia, Ilica 242, 10000, Zagreb, Croatia. livia.puljak@unicath.hr.ORCID 0000-0002-8467-6061
Catholic University of Croatia · HRUniversity of Split · HRUniversity of Mostar · BAUniversity of Tuzla · BA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe concept of standard of care (SoC) treatment is commonly utilized in clinical trials. However, in a setting of an emergent disease, such as COVID-19, where there is no established effective treatment, it is unclear what the investigators considered as the SoC in early clinical trials. The aim of this study was to analyze and classify SoC reported in randomized controlled trial (RCT) registrations and RCTs published in scholarly journals and on preprint servers about treatment interventions for COVID-19.

methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study. We included RCTs registered in a trial registry, and/or published in a scholarly journal, and/or published on preprint servers medRxiv and bioRxiv (any phase; any recruitment status; any language) that aim to compare treatment interventions related to COVID-19 and SoC, available from January 1, 2020, to October 8, 2020. Studies using "standard" treatment were eligible for inclusion if they reported they used standard, usual, conventional, or routine treatment. When we found such multiple reports of an RCT, we treated those multiple sources as one unit of analysis.

resultsAmong 737 unique trials included in the analysis, 152 (21%) reported that SoC was proposed by the institutional or national authority. There were 129 (18%) trials that reported component(s) of SoC; the remaining trials simply reported that they used SoC, with no further detail. Among those 129 trials, the number of components of SoC ranged from 1 to 10. The most commonly used groups of interventions in the SoC were antiparasitics (62% of the trials), antivirals (57%), antibiotics (31%), oxygen (17%), antithrombotics/anticoagulants (14%), vitamins (13%), immunomodulatory agents (13%), corticosteroids (12%), analgesics/antipyretics (12%). Various combinations of those interventions were used in the SoC, with up to 7 different types of interventions combined. Posology, timing, and method of administration were frequently not reported for SoC components.

conclusionMost RCTs (82%) about treatment for COVID-19 that were registered or published in the first 9 months of the pandemic did not describe the "standard of care" they used. Many of those interventions have, by now, been shown as ineffective or even detrimental.

Indexed as

COVID-19 Drug TreatmentPeriodicals as TopicCross-Sectional StudiesHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRegistriesSARS-CoV-2Standard of CareClinical trialCoronavirusCOVID-19Original researchSARS-CoV-2Standard of care

Identifiers

PMID35715728
PMCPMC9205140
OpenAlexW4283067198

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.