Abstract
Background Early 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.
Methods By 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. 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.
Conclusion The 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.
Competing Interest Statement
I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: Markus Ries is a guest editor of the call for papers ?Prediction and Mitigation of Natural Hazards?.
Funding Statement
The authors received no specific funding for this work.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
No ethics review was necessary.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data can be publicly downloaded from the ICTRP search portal from the WHO or can be retrieved from each original registration record.
