...
首页> 外文期刊>Frontiers in Public Health >Research Collaboration and Outcome Measures of Interventional Clinical Trial Protocols for COVID-19 in China
【24h】

Research Collaboration and Outcome Measures of Interventional Clinical Trial Protocols for COVID-19 in China

机译:Covid-19介入临床试验方案的研究合作与结果测量

获取原文

摘要

Background: Research collaboration of registered clinical trials for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains unclear. This study aimed to analyze research collaboration and distribution of outcome measures in registered interventional clinical trials (ICTs) of COVID-19 conducted in China. Methods: The International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, China Clinical Trials Registry, and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched to obtain COVID-19-registered ICTs up to May 25, 2020. Excel 2016 was used to perform a descriptive statistical analysis of the extracted information. VOSviewer 1.6.14 software was used to generate network maps for provinces and institutions and create density maps for outcomes. Results: A total of 390 ICTs were included, and the number of daily registrations fluctuated greatly. From 29 provinces in China, 430 institutions contributed to the registration of ICTs. The top three productive provinces were Hubei (160/390, 41.03%), Shanghai (60/390, 15.38%), and Beijing (59/390, 15.13%). The top three productive institutions were Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology (30/390, 7.69%), Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University (18/390, 4.62%), and Wuhan Jinyintan Hospital (18/390, 4.62%). Collaborations between provinces and institutions were not close enough. There were many interventions, but many trials did not provide specific drugs and their dosage and treatment duration. The most frequently used primary outcome was Chest/lung CT (53/390, 13.59%), and the most frequently used secondary outcome was hospital stay (33/390, 8.46%). There was a large difference in the number of outcomes, the expression of some outcomes was not standardized, the measurement time and tools for some outcomes were not clear, and there was a lack of special outcomes for trials of traditional Chinese medicine. Conclusions: Although there were some collaborations between provinces and institutions of the current COVID-19 ICT protocols in China, cooperation between regions should be further strengthened. The identified deficiencies in interventions and outcome measures should be given more attention by future researchers of COVID-19.
机译:背景:2019年冠状病毒疾病注册临床试验的研究合作(Covid-19)仍然不清楚。本研究旨在分析在中国进行Covid-19的注册介入临床试验(ICT)中的研究合作和分布。方法:中国临床试验登记平台,中国临床试验登记处和ClinColicaltrials.gov被搜查为从5月25日达到5月25日的Covid-19注册的ICT。Excel 2016用于对提取信息进行描述性统计分析。 VosViewer 1.6.14软件用于生成省市和机构的网络地图,并为结果创建密度图。结果:共用了390个ICT,每日登记的数量大幅波动。从中国的29个省份,430所机构促成了ICT的注册。前三大生产省份是湖北(160/390,41.03%),上海(60/390,15.38%),北京(59/390,15.13%)。前三大生产机构是同济医学院同济医院,华中科技大学(30/390,7.69%),武汉大学中南医院(18/390,4.62%)和武汉金宫潭医院(18/390 ,4.62%)。省和机构之间的合作不够接近。有许多干预措施,但许多试验没有提供特定的药物及其剂量和治疗持续时间。最常用的主要结果是胸部/肺CT(53/390,13.59%),最常用的二次结果是住院住宿(33/390,8.46%)。结果存在很大差异,一些结果的表达不是标准化的,一些结果的测量时间和工具尚不清楚,缺乏中药试验的特殊结果。结论:虽然中国当前Covid-19 ICT协议的省和机构之间有一些合作,但应进一步加强地区之间的合作。通过Covid-19的未来研究人员,应更加关注所确定的干预措施和结果措施。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号