{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02616649299525298, 'fraction_numerical': 0.011964030720543398, 'mean_word_length': 5.150486589128887, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 3, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 2, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 1, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparison of COVID‐19 studies registered in the clinical trial platforms: A research ethics analysis perspective

Abstract Background The coronavirus disease (COVID‐19) treatment must be based on scientific methods such as clinical trials. Trials involving human subjects and those requiring a risk‐benefit analysis may occasionally face challenges owing to the time limitations in the pandemic. Methodology This study analyses the WHO's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and clinicaltrials.gov, where most COVID‐19 clinical trials are registered, according to ethical criteria including study design, conflicts of interest, enrollment of healthcare workers, study locations, site‐, design‐, and participant‐related issues. The discussion is based on three aspects: the quality of the information to be produced, the relevance to significant health problems, and the creation or evaluation of interventions, policies, or practices that promote individual or public health. Results There were significant differences between the two platforms regarding the investigational medicinal product (IMP), the comparator, ethics committee/institutional review board approval, plan to share individual participant data, study phase, site, IMP, and design‐related issues. Conflict of interest, sponsor information, and management of vulnerable groups were the main areas wherein both platforms lacked sufficient information. Conclusion With this analysis, we aimed to define a minimum set of ethical criteria for clinical trial platforms to obtain standardization between these two platforms.

We analyzed 400 COVID-19 clinical trials from the ICTRP and CTG according to 19 criteria (Table 1). At the time the analysis was initiated on May 20, 2020, 808 studies were registered on the ICTRP.
We considered that including 50% of the registered clinical trials would elucidate the ethical parameters selected for the analysis.
Thus, we randomly selected 400 studies registered on the ICTRP and another 400 registered on CTG. Our research team included four researchers, and each researcher analyzed 100 randomly distributed studies from each platform. The random numbers were generated via www.random.org. After each investigator's analysis, one researcher reviewed all the reports to correct any inconsistencies and ensure standardization of the evaluation process.
The 19 criteria evaluated were selected from the minimum requirements set by the ICTRP and CTG and are listed below. The first 15 criteria were included in both platforms. The presence of criteria items 16 to 19 differed between platforms but was included in the analysis as they are ethically important.
The criteria in Table 1 were selected for evaluation based on brainstorming in the above-mentioned methodological process. We focused on criteria referenced in the platforms that were compatible with each other. We only searched the platforms for the presence of information addressing these criteria, instead of evaluating the quality of the information provided under each criterion.
The limitations of the criteria we chose were as follows: There was not enough or no data on some criteria. The analysis was completed considering this situation and we noted the limitations followed by a critical analysis and made suggestions for improvement.
Per our aim, we made a correlation between our results and the ethical principles outlined in the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences' (CIOMS) International Ethical Guidelines for Health-related Research Involving Humans. This ethical framework was selected because the CIOMS guidelines align the codes of human research ethics with the social value and necessity of scientific research. Our ethical analysis is based on the correlation of the scientific and social value of COVID-19 research and respect for patients' rights. The scientific and social value of research depends on three aspects: first, the quality of the information to be produced; second, the relevance to significant health problems; and third, its contribution to the creation or evaluation of interventions, policies, or practices that promote individual or public health. 3

| Statistical analysis
Data were presented as numbers, percentages, and range (age), and the duration of the studies as median and range. The results of the two platforms were compared using a Fisher exact test, and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Statistical significance was indicated by p < 0.05. SPSS statistics software was used for the data analysis.

| RESULTS
The number of volunteers to be recruited to clinical trials, and the range and median number of volunteers for each clinical trial phase are presented in Table 2. It also summarizes the phase categorization of each study. All three studies defined as a "new treatment measure clinical study" for phase categorization were from China. They were designed to evaluate the integration of traditional Chinese and Western medicine, the efficacy and safety of high dose intravenous vitamin C, and the efficacy of mesenchymal stem cells. Significantly more studies in CTG than in ICTRP indicated they were phase I (p = 0.0033, 95% CI: 1.26-6.51) or phase II (p < 0.0001; 95% CI: 8.59-20.29), or the phase was not applicable (p = 0.0094; 95% CI: 1.91-13.53). The ICTRP included significantly more studies with no phase information (p = 0.0042; 95% CI: 0.88-5.01). Table 3 shows the investigational medicinal products (IMPs) and comparators used in each study. Comparing the two platforms, CTG included significantly more studies investigating pharmaceuticals, laboratory tests, and convalescent plasma than those in ICTRP.

| Investigational medicinal products and comparators
Contrarily, supplements, traditional medicinal products, and vitamins were evaluated in more studies in ICTRP than in CTG.
A placebo or an active comparator was used significantly more in CTG registered studies than ICTRP. Contrarily, the standard of care was used as a comparator significantly more in studies registered in the ICTRP than in CTG.
In Table 4, the numbers and percentages of several criteria are presented and significant differences between CTG and ICTRP indicated with p values.
The research registered in the two platforms did not differ in terms of the study design (Table 4) All genders are included in the 393 (98.25%) studies in the CTG and 394 (98.5%) in the ICTRP. Of the studies registered in CTG, six (1.5%) and one (0.25%) included only women and men as participants respectively. Of the studies registered in the ICTRP, one (0.25%) planned to include only women, and two (0.5%), only men. Three (0.75%) ICTRP-registered studies provided no information on gender. We confirmed that the gender distribution in the studies is proportional and that only patients of a particular gender are included for disorders related to COVID-19 that may be gender specific.
3.3 | Addressing the inclusion of vulnerable groups and plan on how to approach these groups One study registered in the CTG (with children aged 3-10 years), and three in the ICTRP (with children aged 0-18 years, 1-15 years, and 10-16 years, respectively) included only children. Of the 28 (7.0%) studies registered in CTG and 47 (11.75%) in ICTRP that planned to recruit both children and adults, none declared specific arrangements for these participants. Three of the studies registered in CTG somewhat addressed the involvement of children with the following phrases: "Consent signed by at least one parent/holder of parental authority and assent of the child (if applicable); IC prior to initiation of any study procedures from subject (or legally authorized representative); refusal to participate from the parents or the child." Similarly, studies recruiting only elderly people ( > 65 years old; four in CTG and three in ICTRP) did not include details on handling age-specific issues ethically. The five studies with no age information and one study with age information indicated as "not applicable" evaluated the mental health and psychological status of doctors, nurses, and patients (the target of healthcare workers (HCWs) suggests an adult age group), and provided recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of influenza patients in the COVID-19 pandemic, telemedicine, convalescent plasma, and remote rehabilitation using a wearable biological monitoring device.
The inclusion of information on vulnerable populations was also evaluated. Significantly fewer studies in CTG provided this information as part of their exclusion criteria than those in ICTRP (n = 44, 11.0% vs.
3.5 | Site-, investigational medicinal product-, and design-related issues No detailed information was shared regarding all four items of site-related issues (Table 6). However, some studies provided contact information for healthcare providers and research staff, and is evaluated within the scope of the information that has to be provided.
Regarding IMP-related issues, studies registered in CTG significantly more often shared the number of doses available than those in ICTRP. Contrastingly, CTG-registered studies had significantly less information regarding the number of doses likely to be available/scaling up issues/continued access than those in ICTRP.
Information on the risk of IMP to health was significantly more often included in CTG-registered studies than in ICTRP ones.
While information on the duration of the study was shared in all CTG-registered studies (n = 400, 100%), only 296 (74%) of those in ICTRP shared this information (p < 0.0001; 95% CI: 21.83-30.51). For studies in CTG, the median duration was 7 months with a range of 1-44 months, and 5 months for those in ICTRP with a range of 1-60 months.
Information provided regarding bias-internal consistency and ability to maintain privacy and confidentiality in ICTRP-registered studies was greater than in those in CTG registered studies. Significantly more studies in ICTRP included information on the ability to maintain privacy and confidentiality (see Table 6).

| DISCUSSION
The results of the analysis in the CTG and the ICTRP revealed both the strengths and weaknesses of these platforms. 11.39% were commercially sponsored studies (CSS) and 4.36% were non-CSS (NCSS). The inclusion of information on vulnerable populations was significantly fewer in studies in CTG (information provided as part of their exclusion criteria) than those in ICTRP. In terms of site-, IMP-, and design-related issues, a few studies provided contact information for healthcare providers and research staff in both the databases. Studies registered in CTG significantly more often shared the number of doses available than did those in ICTRP.
And information about privacy and confidentiality issues were significantly greater in ICTRP-registered studies.
Although the minimum WHO data set requirements do not include some criteria such as "COI, site-, IMP-, and design-related issues," we conducted our analysis considering these criteria because the criteria beyond the minimum requirements were items that we thought were necessary to both provide ethical standards and guide researchers who might want to conduct similar research or make an Phase I studies are performed on a small group of (20-100) healthy volunteers, and phase II trials on groups of 100-300 people with a specific disease and are designed to assess how well the drug works.
However, in some studies, the recruitment goal did not correlate with the definition of the phase of the study; for example, a study recruited 580 patients and it was recorded as phase I. 6 Considering the urgent need to decrease the detrimental effects of COVID-19, particularly the number of deaths and long-term hospitalizations, including more than the defined number of subjects in phase I or II vaccine studies may be understandable. However, at the time of our analysis, a total of 22 vaccine trials were registered on both platforms and one vaccine trial from each platform aimed to recruit >10000 volunteers.
This situation raises three different research ethics problems: 1. Risk mitigation and avoiding unnecessary harm: Including more than the necessary number of patients in the study implies exposing them to more risk than they should be, in such a case the principle of "do no harm" is ignored.
T A B L E 6 Site-, IMP-and design-related issues of each study in the CTG and ICTRP CTG (n; %) ICTRP (n; %) p value (95% CI)

| Investigational medicinal product discrepancies
If the research is being conducted to show or prove the clinical importance or value of the product, and to confirm safety or efficacy, then it must follow standardized pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic rules.
Today, while there is proven technology to show the active compound profile in each plant in the finest detail and to investigate its efficacy and safety profile, avoiding this is ignoring the accumulated scientific literature. What we witnessed was that while CTG included more studies investigating pharmaceuticals, ICTRP included more studies investigating supplements, traditional medicinal products, and vitamins. The excessive concentration and accumulation of information in the literature on such traditional approaches, whose scientific validity seems controversial, creates complexity and difficulties for scientists in accessing the necessary scientific information.

| Ethics committee/institutional review board approval and informed consent procedure discrepancies
The main purpose of both platforms is not to provide ethical information about the clinical trials but to announce the initiation and results of the conducted studies to the public, primarily patients, on web pages. Therefore, the platforms' approach is considered in terms of presenting information to the patient. However, if the reliability and reproducibility of a clinical study are to be validated through these platforms, it is inevitable to be able to prove its ethical acceptability, that is, to share the Ethics Committee/Institutional Review Board (EC/IRB) approval status and information. The users of these platforms may think that any protocol registered on the platform has an EC/IRB approval by default, but our research proved that this assumption is incorrect. For example, one study declares that recruitment was initiated, but also states that ethical approval has not yet been received, which is an obvious ethical breach.

| Informed consent procedure
The CIOMS guidelines state that "the individual IC of participants is obtained even in a situation of duress unless the conditions for a waiver of IC are met." The urgency caused by the COVID-19 pandemic creates a situation of duress; however, there were studies raising concern regarding the most indispensable procedure of clinical trials guaranteeing patient autonomy and rights. For example, one study registered on CTG stated that it included volunteers who provided written or verbal consent, or without consent. 8 Eight studies stated that consent will be obtained, indicating the exclusion criterion "refusal to participate in the research," but not indicating whether it will be written or verbal. 9 Correlatively, eleven of the ICTRP-registered studies stated they are undecided about obtaining IC, and one study stated that it will register the patients and obtain consent later.

| Individual participant data share discrepancy
Clinical trial data should be shared and treated as a public good, that is, whether they are publicly funded or commercial. 10 Ethically, if access to health and healthcare is a basic human right, access to clinical trial data that can improve health is similarly a fundamental right, and those patients involved in research have an obligation to their fellow citizens to respect and promote it. 11 This is the only way to properly recognize the value of the data and the generosity of the patients who provided them. Although the researchers who generate the data may have the greatest stake in their use, they should not perceive it as their "private property". So, any data sharing model should be based on the concept of data "stewardship" rather than data "ownership". 12 The presence of the consent to collect and use personal data draws the boundaries between the definitions of data stewardship and ownership. The EU clinical trial regulation 536/2014 also refers to the reuse of data from clinical trials for future scientific research, underlining the importance of the consent to use data outside the protocol of the clinical trial, the right to withdraw that consent at any time, and mechanisms to review that secondary analyses are appropriate and ethical. 13 However, some studies planning to share individual participant data (IPD) provide no information on how to maintain the privacy and confidentiality of the subjects. For example, regarding the IPD share plan, one study merely states that the "medical history and biographical and clinical data of each patient will be recorded and shared." We consider this issue an inconsistency caused by a tendency for "sloppy" research. There may be two reasons for its conceptualization. First, the researchers may be doing it just to enter data into the platform without questioning the consistency or accuracy thereof. Second, researchers supported by funding organizations that adopt an open science strategy may be accepting the IPD share plan without questioning the ethics because of this strategy requirement. If identifiable personal information is included among the IPD to be shared, this data should be anonymized to protect subjects' privacy and confidentiality. If disclosed to third parties, the collection of health data could cause harm, stigma, or distress. Access to IPD and trial documents should be as open as possible and as closed as necessary to protect participant privacy and reduce the risk of data misuse. IPD related concerns for the sponsors who are the data controllers include the inability to protect participant privacy, and for the investigators who are the data generators, include the possible misinterpretation of the data. 14 To us, the fact that no explanation or precaution was taken regarding this matter implies that the researchers did not sufficiently know the scope of open science. 15,16 What is more, before open access to clinical trial data is authorized, some further considerations should be taken into account such as safeguarding the rights of patients who enter trials, protecting the intellectual property rights of the researchers who designed the trial and collected the data, and providing a barrier against unnecessary duplication. 17 Determining the minimum data entry requirement regarding ethical aspects of the protocol would enhance the scientific quality and volunteer well-being; both concern the researchers and potential trial subjects. For example, the requirement to enter an IPD plan raises awareness for researchers. of publicly funded research. Today, this is important in terms of knowing the ratio of the public research budget allocated to COVID-19. Moreover, providing information on COI would enhance the transparency and reliability of a study. The primary aim of funding organizations or researchers should always be to generate the scientific knowledge needed to promote human health, not scientific recognition or financial gain. Transparency is crucial in maintaining the public's trust in the scientific process, and COI documentation warrants the ethical conduct of research and the absence of any kind of COI. Therefore, researchers must address COI during the grant application process. 22,23

| Subject issue discrepancies and ethical implications about vulnerability
Protection of subjects included in studies conducted in hierarchical environments such as the military or police force must be considered and the necessity of inclusion of these subjects must be well defined.
Two studies in ICTRP performed on naval personnel or police lack this information. 24 HCWs are exposed to the risk of infection during long work hours, rendering them one of the most vulnerable groups of people in the COVID-19 pandemic, because of the hypothetical social contract between them and society. When subjects are likely to be vulnerable to coercion or undue influence, additional safeguards should be included in the study to protect their rights and welfare. 25 Understanding the scope of vulnerability depends on recognizing the power differential; vulnerable populations are influenced by individuals with the power in the relationship. HCWs are employees in this type of power differential.
According to the CIOMS guidelines, the ethical implication of recruiting employees as research subjects is the over-representation of humans that are already disadvantaged and it may cause serious ethical problems. First, HCWs or people working in a hierarchical environment already experience increased risks from social and economic disadvantage, meaning the risk posed by COVID-19 research may be too excessive to endure. Second, if these disadvantaged groups are already at risk of research, it should be ensured that they will not be excluded from or they do not have difficulty in accessing the benefits of the study. Rather, they should be the first to benefit from the research results. 26 Therefore, these public databases should include information about the justification for recruiting only from these vulnerable populations and risk mitigation strategies to avoid exploitation of these subjects.
It is also important to discuss age in terms of vulnerability. 27 Studies planning to recruit children did not declare specific arrangements for these participants. The need for specific arrangements underlines the fact that children and adolescents must be included in health-related research unless a good scientific reason justifies their exclusion. 28 In CTG, we found phrases such as "consent signed by at least one parent/holder of parental authority and assent of the child (if applicable); IC prior to initiation of any study procedures from the subject (or legally authorized representative); refusal to participate from the parents or child." 29 Similarly, studies in both CTG and ICTRP recruiting only elderly people did not address ethical issues regarding age. We also observed that no precautions were noted for subjects in studies with the potential to include patients who are pregnant or lactating.
In the case of COVID-19 trials, the capacity to consent to research participation is the main criterion of vulnerability. 30 Two reasons why people may not be able to decline to consent may be due to therapeutic misconception, as mentioned above, and second, as an individual who has been infected and quarantined, the patient may think he or she has nothing to do but participate in the research.
The discrepancies regarding inclusion-exclusion information criteria are another important issue for discussion. Several studies had only one inclusion criterion, namely "testing positive for COVID-19," and one exclusion criterion, "not consenting to participate in the study." We also noted several studies' mandates as "having medical insurance" or to "be included in the insurance systems of x country" as inclusion criteria. This is ethically problematic because this situation, Considering all the results we obtained, we recommend the following standardized procedures for both of the databases: 1. The definition of clinical trials and their phases must be standardized internationally and shared at the start of the registration to either platform (or country-specific platform). For example, there should not be a phase in physiological-psychological interventions, because these are not IMP studies, or researchers should not be able to input "5000 people will be enrolled in the study" when categorizing their research as a phase I study.
2. It should be ensured that the ICP is completed properly, and the legal guardian consent form approved when needed. EU platform links contain trial information such as non-technical and easily  The presence of the data of vulnerable groups or patients without health insurance Data of vulnerable groups or patients without health insurance are outside the vulnerable group should not be entered The inconsistency between "plan to share IPD" and "ability to maintain privacy and confidentiality" criteria Trials indicating "yes" in terms of the "plan to share IPD" criteria must explain the measures they have taken to ensure how to maintain privacy & confidentiality 5 The forejudgment that any protocol registered on the platform has an EC/IRB approval by default The conditions of full review or expedited review should be given for all studies 6 CIO information discrepancy COI information should be given for both commercially sponsored studies (CSS) and also for non-CSS 4. To determine that the confidentiality of patients is maintained, trials indicating "yes" in terms of the "plan to share IPD" criteria must explain the measures they have taken to ensure the "ability to maintain privacy and confidentiality". Incomplete or inaccurate data should be avoided, while increasing researchers' knowledge and awareness about the IPD plan is crucial and, to achieve this, the design of the platforms that guide these researchers should be highlighted.

| CONCLUSION
Our starting point was that there should be no ethical violations in clinical trials carried out during the COVID-19 pandemic. The main concern was that the need for urgent results may hinder the ethical and scientific integrity of research conducted during clinical trials.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST
We know of no conflicts of interest associated with this publication, and there has been no financial support for this work. The manuscript has been read and approved for submission by all the named authors.