Search PubMedSearch

PubMed · 42574892

Timeliness of publication of randomized controlled trials in rheumatology: A systematic review.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the (1) timeliness of publication of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in rheumatology, (2) impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on time to publication, and (3) factors associated with publication delays. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, EBM Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus from January 1, 2018, to June 30, 2023 for Phase 3, superiority, parallel-design RCTs that evaluated any treatment for a rheumatologic illness or a rheumatologic treatment for COVID-19 and reported clinical primary efficacy outcome. Outcomes of interest were time to publication after trial completion and publication delay of >2 years after trial completion. RESULTS: 448 RCTs were included in this systematic review. Median time from completion to publication was 549 days and 65.9 % RCTs were published within 2 years of completion. Compared with RCTs on rheumatologic diseases, RCTs on COVID-19 were published sooner (253 vs. 549 days; p < 0.001) and were more likely to be published within 2 years (adjusted OR 9.49, 95 % CI 2.07 to 43.61). Compared with RCTs completed before March 1, 2020, RCTs completed after March 1, 2020, were published sooner (327 vs. 724 days; p < 0.001) and were more likely to be published within 2 years (adjusted OR 9.40, 95 % CI 5.14 to 17.21). Time from RCT completion to submission accounted for most (67 %) of the time to publication. CONCLUSIONS: Publication delay continues to be an important concern in dissemination of clinical research. Most of the delays in publication were attributable to delays in submission to journals after trial completion.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Pankaj Bansal, Nasim A Khan, Harsimar Singh, Mahrukh Siddiqui, Jennifer Schram, Shreya Patel, Shailey Karri, Alexa Constantakos, Nivedita Sundararajan, Ian J Saldanha. 2026-07-30. Timeliness of publication of randomized controlled trials in rheumatology: A systematic review.. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semarthrit.2026.153052

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Approaches to observational study designs and analytical options to evaluate the safety of multi-dose vaccines: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Observational studies require careful considerations when evaluating the safety of multidose vaccines. We reviewed design and analytical approaches in observational studies evaluating the safety of multidose vaccines in the post-licensure phase. METHODS: EMBASE, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Scopus (2018-2022) were searched for hypothesis-testing studies evaluating the safety of multidose vaccines. Key features from frequently used designs were extracted. RESULTS: Among 123 eligible studies, cohort (46%) and self-controlled case series (SCCS)/self-controlled risk interval (SCRI) (40%) followed by case-control (12%) were the most common designs, and 15% of studies used multiple designs. Among cohort studies evaluating multiple doses, vaccination date (36%) and cohort entry with time-updated exposure status (32%) were frequent approaches used to define time zero. Twenty-eight percent of cohort studies did not report time zero; all but one evaluated COVID-19 vaccine effect on post-delivery and fertility-related outcomes. For SCCS/SCRI, 64% of studies accounted for event-dependent exposures, mainly by including pre-exposure periods (53%) and modified SCCS model (48%), while 20% employed multiple correction strategies. Among studies using multiple designs, 68% reached consistent conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: SCCS/SCRI and cohort designs dominate multidose vaccine safety studies. Clear reporting on time zero in pregnancy and fertility-related cohort studies, and on addressing event-dependent exposures in SCCS/SCRI studies is needed, along with guidance on interpreting results from multiple designs.

Humans

Safety and immunogenicity of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine administered to adults: A phase 2, randomized, active-controlled trial.

We conducted a phase 2, randomized, active-controlled, observer-blind study (NCT05960097) among healthy adults&#x2009;&#x2265;18 y of age who completed a primary COVID-19 mRNA vaccination series, with or without a booster, &#x2265;3&#x2009;months earlier. Participants were randomized (1:1:1:1:1) to either receive an investigational bivalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccine encoding ancestral D614G and Omicron BA.4-5 spike proteins (CV0701 mRNA vaccine) at one of three dose levels, an investigational monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccine encoding the Omicron BA.4-5 spike protein (CV0601 mRNA vaccine), or a licensed Original Wuhan/Omicron BA.4-5 bivalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. The primary objectives were to evaluate reactogenicity, safety and immunogenicity post-vaccination. Secondary and tertiary objectives were to further evaluate humoral and cell-mediated immunity post-vaccination. In total, 425 participants were vaccinated and 381 were included in the Day 29 per-protocol immunogenicity analysis. Most solicited events were mild to moderate. No vaccine-related serious adverse events or myocarditis/pericarditis cases were reported. For the CV0701 mRNA vaccine, a dose-dependent increase in Day 29 neutralizing titers against ancestral D614G and Omicron BA.4-5 was observed. Neutralizing titers against ancestral D614G and Omicron BA.4-5 declined by Days 91 and 181, but remained above baseline. Similar immune responses were observed for the CV0601 mRNA vaccine. At Day 8, CD4+ T cells (Th1 profile) increased in all study groups and CD8+ T cells increased in all study groups, except the lowest CV0701 dose group. The CV0701 and CV0601 mRNA vaccines elicited robust humoral and cellular immunity with an acceptable safety profile, comparable to a licensed, bivalent mRNA vaccine. Clinical Trial Registration EU CT number: 2023-504596-25-00 ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05960097.

Humans

Cognitive-behavioral therapy for post COVID-19 condition: A pilot randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The post COVID-19 condition (PCC) is a disabling condition with urgent need for effective treatments. This pilot randomized controlled trial examined the feasibility and efficacy of a cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for PCC in a parallel-group design. METHODS: N&#xa0;=&#xa0;53 individuals with PCC were randomized to CBT (n&#xa0;=&#xa0;27) or 16-week wait-list control (WLC) condition (n&#xa0;=&#xa0;26). One participant allocated to WLC was excluded after randomization, resulting in an intention-to-treat (ITT) sample of N&#xa0;=&#xa0;52 participants (CBT: n&#xa0;=&#xa0;27, age: M&#xa0;=&#xa0;48.59, SD&#xa0;=&#xa0;11.52, 77.8% female; WLC: n&#xa0;=&#xa0;25, Age: M&#xa0;=&#xa0;48.44, SD&#xa0;=&#xa0;9.81, 60% female). CBT comprised eight group and five individual sessions addressing cognitive and behavioral factors of symptom maintenance (treatment duration if completed: M&#xa0;=&#xa0;14&#xa0;weeks, SD&#xa0;=&#xa0;1&#xa0;week). Primary outcomes included fatigue (FSS), overall somatic symptom burden (PHQ-15), and respiratory and cardiovascular symptoms (SBQ&#x2122;-LC "Breathing" and "Circulation"), assessed at pre-, post-assessment, and follow-up. RESULTS: Participants receiving CBT showed a significant medium-sized reduction in fatigue directly after treatment compared to the WLC condition (d&#xa0;=&#xa0;-0.58, p&#xa0;=&#xa0;.045), whereas the WLC group showed a significant increase in overall somatic symptoms (d&#xa0;=&#xa0;0.60, p&#xa0;=&#xa0;.027). Results for respiratory symptoms were mixed, showing inconsistent patterns across analyses. Retrospectively assessed feasibility and treatment satisfaction were good, with few adverse effects reported. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot trial suggests the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of CBT for PCC. Larger RCTs with active control groups should confirm these findings.

Humans