Databases of ICMJE-accepted clinical trial registry platform were searched on February 14, 2020. Eligibility CriteriaRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs of COVID-19 were considered. Conditions of patients include common type, severe type or critical type. Interventions include traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) and Western medicine. We excluded trials that for discharged patients, psychological intervention and complications of COVID-19. Data extraction and synthesisThe general information and outcomes, outcome measurement instruments and measurement times were extracted. The results were analysed by descriptive analysis. Results19 registry platforms were searched. A total of 97 protocols were included from 160 protocols. For protocols of TCM clinical trials, 76 outcomes from 16 outcome domains were reported, and almost half (34/76, 44.74%) of outcomes were reported only once; the most frequently reported outcome was time of SARS-CoV-2 RNA turns to negative. 27 (27/76, 35.53%) outcomes were provided one or more outcome measurement instruments. 10 outcomes were provided one or more measurement time frame. For protocols of western medicine clinical trials, 126 outcomes from 17 outcome domains were reported; almost half (62/126, 49.21%) of outcomes were reported only once; the most frequently reported outcome was proportion of patients with negative SARS-CoV-2. 27 outcomes were provided one or more outcome measurement instruments. 40 (40/126, 31.75%) outcomes were provided one or more measurement time frame. ConclusionOutcome reporting in protocols of clinical trials of COVID-19 is inconsistent. Thus, developing a core outcome set is necessary.

Background: Development of a core outcome set (COS) for clinical trials for COVID-19 is urgent because of the pandemic wreaking havoc worldwide and the heterogeneity of outcomes in clinical trials.Methods: A preliminary list of outcomes was developed after a systematic review of protocols of clinical trials for COVID-19. Then, two rounds of the Delphi survey were conducted. Stakeholders were traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) experts, Western medicine (WM) experts, nurses, and the public. Patients with confirmed COVID-19 were also invited to participate in a questionnaire written in understandable language. Then different stakeholders participated in a consensus meeting by video conference to vote.Results: Ninety-seven eligible study protocols were identified from 160 clinical trials. Seventy-six outcomes were identified from TCM clinical trials and 126 outcomes were identified from WM clinical trials. Finally, 145 outcomes were included in the first round of the Delphi survey. Then, a COS for clinical trials of TCM and WM was developed. The COS included clinical outcomes (recovery/improvement/progression/death), etiology (SARS-CoV-2 nucleic-acid tests, viral load), inflammatory factor (C-reactive protein), vital signs (temperature, respiration), blood and lymphatic-system parameters (lymphocytes, virus antibody), respiratory outcomes (pulmonary imaging, blood oxygen saturation, PaO2/ FiO2 ratio, arterial blood gas analysis, mechanical ventilation, oxygen intake, pneumonia severity index), clinical efficacy (prevalence of preventing patients with mild-to-moderate disease progressing to severe disease), and symptoms (clinical symptom score). Outcomes were recommended according to different types of disease. Outcome measurement instruments/definitions were also recommended. Conclusion:Though there are some limitations for the research, such as insufficient patients and the public involvement, and the unbalanced stakeholders' region, the COS

Background: Development of a core outcome set (COS) for clinical trials for COVID-19 is urgent because of the pandemic wreaking havoc worldwide and the heterogeneity of outcomes in clinical trials. Methods:A preliminary list of outcomes were developed after a systematic review of protocols of clinical trials for COVID-19. Then, two rounds of the Delphi survey were conducted. Stakeholders were traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) experts, Western medicine (WM) experts, nurses and the public. Patients with confirmed COVID-19 were also invited to participate in a questionnaire written in understandable language. Frontline clinicians, as well as nurse, methodologist, evidence based-medicine researcher, and staff from the Chinese Clinical Trials Registry participated by video conference to vote.Results: Ninety-seven eligible study protocols were identified from 160 clinical trials.Seventy-six outcomes were identified from TCM clinical trials and 126 outcomes were identified from WM clinical trials. Finally, 145 outcomes were included in the first round of the Delphi survey. Then, a COS for clinical trials of TCM and WM was developed. The COS include clinical outcomes (recovery/improvement/progression/death), etiology (SARS-CoV-2 nucleic-acid tests, viral load), inflammatory factor (C-reactive protein), vital signs (temperature, respiration), blood and lymphatic-system parameters (lymphocytes, virus antibody), respiratory outcomes (Pulmonary imaging, blood oxygen saturation, PaO2/FiO2 ratio, arterial blood gas analysis, mechanical ventilation, oxygen intake, pneumonia severity index), clinical efficacy (prevalence of preventing patients with mild-to-moderate disease progressing to severe disease), symptoms (clinical symptom score). Outcomes were recommended according to different types of disease. Outcome measurement instrument/definition were also recommended.

Aims: To identify a minimum set of efficacy and adverse events for patients with acute heart failure (AHF) among different stakeholders in clinical trials of traditional Chinese medicine and Western medicine.Methods and Analysis: First, we will develop a preliminary long list of outcomes that includes efficacy and adverse events/reactions via three steps: (i) systematic reviews of efficacy and safety outcomes for clinical trials of AHF; (ii) drugs included in the National Medical Insurance Catalog, the National Essential Medicines Catalog, and the WHO Essential Medicines List will be collected and safety outcomes extracted from the package inserts; and (iii) patients' or caregivers' semi-structured interviews will be carried out to add new viewpoints to the list. Second, after merging outcomes and grouping them under different outcome domains, questionnaires for health professionals and patients will be separately developed. Further, two rounds of Delphi survey for health professionals and a survey for patients and the public will be carried out. Third, different stakeholders will discuss and determine the final core outcome set (COS) for AHF in a consensus meeting.Ethics and Dissemination: The entire project has been approved by the Ethics Committee of the main institution. After the final COS is developed, it will be published and discussed widely in conferences.Clinical Trial Registration: This study is registered with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials database as study 1566 (available at: https://www.cometinitiative.org/Studies/Details/1566).

Background 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. Objective 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. Search strategy 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.” Inclusion criteria RCTs studying the treatment of COVID-19 were eligible for inclusion. Data extraction and analysis 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 Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Version 5.1.0). Variability in implementation was assessed by comparing consistency between RCT reports and registration information. Results 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. Conclusion 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 resea...