Abstract:<h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Background</h3><p>The therapeutic evidence collected from well-designed studies is needed to help manage the global pandemic of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Evaluating the quality of therapeutic data collected during this most recent pandemic is important for improving future clinical research under similar circumstances.</p><h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Objective</h3><p>To assess the methodological quality and variability in implementation of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for treating COVID-19, and to analyze the support that should be provided to improve data collected during an urgent pandemic situation.</p><h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Search strategy</h3><p>PubMed, Excerpta Medica Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, and Chongqing VIP, and the preprint repositories including Social Science Research Network and MedRxiv were systematically searched, up to September 30, 2020, using the keywords "coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)," "2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)," "severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2)," "novel coronavirus pneumonia (NCP)," "randomized controlled trial (RCT)" and "random."</p><h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Inclusion criteria</h3><p>RCTs studying the treatment of COVID-19 were eligible for inclusion.</p><h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Data extraction and analysis</h3><p>Screening of published RCTs for inclusion and data extraction were each conducted by two researchers. Analysis of general information on COVID-19 RCTs was done using descriptive statistics. Methodological quality was assessed using the risk-of-bias tools in the <em>Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions</em> (Version 5.1.0). Variability in implementation was assessed by comparing consistency between RCT reports and registration information.</p><h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Results</h3><p>A total of 5886 COVID-19 RCTs were identified. Eighty-one RCTs were finally included, of which, 45 had registration information. Methodological quality of the RTCs was not optimal due to deficiencies in five main domains: allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data, and selective reporting. Comparisons of consistency between published protocols and registration information showed that the 45 RCTs with registration information had common deviations in seven items: inclusion and exclusion criteria, sample size, outcomes, research sites of recruitment, interventions, and blinding.</p><h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Conclusion</h3><p>The methodological quality of COVID-19 RCTs conducted in early to mid 2020 was consistently low and variability in implementation was common. More support for implementing high-quality methodology is needed to obtain the quality of therapeutic evidence needed to provide positive guidance for clinical care. We make an urgent appeal for accelerating the construction of a collaborative sharing platform and preparing multidisciplinary talent and professional teams to conduct excellent clinical research when faced with epidemic diseases of the future. Further, variability in RCT implementation should be clearly reported and interpreted to improve the utility of data resulting from those trials.</p><p>Please cite this article as: Zhao MZ, Zhao C, Tu SS, Wei XX, Shang HC. Evaluating the methodology of studies conducted during the global COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. <em>J Integr Med</em>. 2021; Epub ahead of print.</p>

Assessing the Reporting Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials on COVID-19 Vaccines: a Systematic Review

Evaluation of Reporting Quality of Abstracts of Randomized Controlled Trials Regarding Patients with COVID-19 Using the CONSORT Statement for Abstracts

Reporting and data sharing level for COVID-19 vaccine trials: A cross-sectional study

Safety, Tolerability, and Immunogenicity of COVID-19 Vaccines: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

A comprehensive analysis of the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines.

Evaluating the methodology of studies conducted during the global COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials

Safety of COVID-19 Vaccine:A Meta-Analysis

COVID-19 vaccine guidelines was numerous in quantity but many lack transparent reporting of methodological practices

Safety of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

The reporting standards of randomised controlled trials in leading medical journals between 2019 and 2020: a systematic review

Evaluation of the Safety Profile of COVID-19 Vaccines: a Rapid Review

Evaluating the Quality of Studies Assessing COVID-19 Vaccine Neutralizing Antibody Immunogenicity

Reporting of Health Equity Considerations in Vaccine Trials for COVID-19: A Methodological Review

Reporting quality of randomized, controlled trials evaluating immunotherapy in lung cancer

Reporting and methodological quality of COVID-19 systematic reviews needs to be improved: an evidence mapping

Comparability of clinical trials and spontaneous reporting data regarding COVID-19 vaccine safety

Clinical Trials in COVID-19 Management & Prevention: A Meta-epidemiological Study Examining Methodological Quality

Clinical Trials in COVID-19 Management & Prevention: A Meta-Epidemiological Study Examining Methodological Quality.

How the clinical research community responded to the COVID-19 pandemic: An analysis of the COVID-19 clinical studies in ClinicalTrials.gov

Effect of covid-19 vaccination on long covid: systematic review

Epidemiology, Methodological Quality, and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses on Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Cross-Sectional Study.