SynthesisPloS one2023
The scientific chaos phase of the great pandemic: A longitudinal analysis and systematic review of the first surge of clinical research concerning COVID-19.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- COVID-19: did the masks work?Future microbiology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEarly stages of catastrophes like COVID-19 are often led by chaos and panic. To characterize the initial chaos phase of clinical research in such situations, we analyzed the first surge of more than 1000 clinical trials about the new disease at baseline and after two years follow-up. Our 3 main objectives were: (1) Assessment of spatial and temporal evolution of clinical research of COVID-19 across the globe, (2) Assessment of transparency and quality-trial registration, (3) Assessment of research waste and redundancies.
methodsBy entering the keyword "COVID-19" we screened the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform of the WHO and downloaded the search output when our goal of 1000 trials was reached on the 1st of April 2020. Additionally, we verified the integrity of the downloaded data from the meta registry by comparing the data with each individual registration record on their source register. Also, we conducted a follow-up after two years to track their progress.
results(1) The spatial evolution followed the geographical spread of the disease as expected, however, the temporal development suggested that panic was the main driver for clinical research activities. (2) Trial registrations and registers showed a huge lack of transparency by allowing retrospective registrations and not keeping their registration records up to date. Quality of trial registration seems to have improved over the last decade, yet crucial information still was missing. (3) Research waste and redundancies were present as suggested by discontinuation of trials, preventable flaws in study design, and similar but uncoordinated research topics operationally fragmented in isolated silo-structures.
conclusionThe scientific response mechanism across the globe was intact during the chaos phase. However, supervision, leadership, and accountability are urgently needed to prevent research waste, to ensure effective structure, quality, and validity to ultimately break the "panic-then-forget" cycle in future catastrophes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.