Preserving equipoise and performing randomised trials for COVID-19 social distancing interventions.

Abstract

In the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, a large number of non-pharmaceutical measures that pertain to the wider group of social distancing interventions (e.g. public gathering bans, closures of schools, workplaces and all but essential business, mandatory stay-at-home policies, travel restrictions, border closures and others) have been deployed. Their urgent deployment was defended with modelling and observational data of spurious credibility. There is major debate on whether these measures are effective and there is also uncertainty about the magnitude of the harms that these measures might induce. Given that there is equipoise for how, when and if specific social distancing interventions for COVID-19 should be applied and removed/modified during reopening, we argue that informative randomised-controlled trials are needed. Only a few such randomised trials have already been conducted, but the ones done to-date demonstrate that a randomised trials agenda is feasible. We discuss here issues of study design choice, selection of comparators (intervention and controls), choice of outcomes and additional considerations for the conduct of such trials. We also discuss and refute common counter-arguments against the conduct of such trials.

• Authors: Ioana Alina Cristea, Florian Naudet, John P A Ioannidis
• Journal: Epidemiology and psychiatric sciences (Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci) Vol. 29 Pg. e184 (Oct 28 2020) ISSN: 2045-7979 [Electronic] England
• PMID: 33109299 (Publication Type: Journal Article)

Topics

• Betacoronavirus
• COVID-19
• Coronavirus
• Coronavirus Infections (epidemiology)
• Humans
• Pandemics
• Pneumonia, Viral (epidemiology)
• Psychological Distance
• Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
• Research Design
• SARS-CoV-2
• Social Conditions
• Therapeutic Equipoise