dc.contributor.author | Cipriani, Andrea | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2020-11-12T18:57:42Z | |
dc.date.available | 2020-11-12T18:57:42Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2020-10 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Huseyin Naci, Aaron S Kesselheim, John-Arne Røttingen, Georgia Salanti, Per O Vandvik, Andrea Cipriani. Producing and using timely comparative evidence on drugs: lessons from clinical trials for covid-19. BMJ: first published as 10.1136/bmj.m3869 on 16 October 2020 | en |
dc.identifier.issn | 2044-6055 | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://oxfordhealth-nhs.archive.knowledgearc.net/handle/123456789/635 | |
dc.description | Available with an NHS OpenAthens log in for eligible users | en |
dc.description.abstract | Since the early days of the novel coronavirus
outbreak, a record number of studies have been
launched to test several repurposed and new
medicines as potential treatments for covid-19 An
analysis by the news organisation STAT identified
over 1000 clinical trials registered on
ClinicalTrials.gov between January and June 2020.
This is a testament to the research and clinical
community’s commitment to identify effective
treatments for covid-19. However, the large volume
of studies may paradoxically limit the generation of
robust evidence and complicate the formulation of
trustworthy guidance and decisions related to drug
use if the current research is duplicative and
redundant or produces conflicting data.
Indeed,
the multiplicity of research on candidate therapeutics
for covid-19 has exposed important flaws and failures
in the current evidence ecosystem.Crucially, these
limitations also affect the full spectrum of research
on new health technologies. | en |
dc.description.sponsorship | Supported by the NIHR | en |
dc.description.uri | https://doi: 10.1136/bmj.m3869 | en |
dc.language.iso | en | en |
dc.subject | COVID-19 | en |
dc.title | Producing and using timely comparative evidence on drugs: lessons from clinical trials for covid-19 | en |
dc.type | Article | en |