BackgroundRoutinely collected health data (RCD) are increasingly used for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This can provide three major benefits: increasing value through better feasibility (reducing costs, time, and resources), expanding the research agenda (performing trials for research questions otherwise not amenable to trials), and offering novel design and data collection options (e.g., point-of-care trials and other designs directly embedded in routine care). However, numerous hurdles and barriers must be considered pertaining to regulatory, ethical, and data aspects, as well as the costs of setting up the RCD infrastructure. Methodological considerations may be different from those in traditional RCTs: RCD are often collected by individuals not involved in the study and who are therefore blinded to the allocation of trial participants. Another consideration is that RCD trials may lead to greater misclassification biases or dilution effects, although these may be offset by randomization and larger sample sizes. Finally, valuable insights into external validity may be provided when using RCD because it allows pragmatic trials to be performed.MethodsWe provide an overview of the promises, challenges, and potential barriers, methodological implications, and research needs regarding RCD for RCTs.ResultsRCD have substantial potential for improving the conduct and reducing the costs of RCTs, but a multidisciplinary approach is essential to address emerging practical barriers and methodological implications.ConclusionsFuture research should be directed toward such issues and specifically focus on data quality validation, alternative research designs and how they affect outcome assessment, and aspects of reporting and transparency.

Simultaneously tracking the global impact of COVID-19 is challenging because of regional variation in resources and reporting. Leveraging self-reported survey outcomes via an existing international social media network has the potential to provide standardized data streams to support monitoring and decision-making worldwide, in real time, and with limited local resources. The University of Maryland Global COVID-19 Trends and Impact Survey (UMD-CTIS), in partnership with Facebook, has invited daily cross-sectional samples from the social media platform's active users to participate in the survey since its launch on April 23, 2020. We analyzed UMD-CTIS survey data through December 20, 2020, from 31,142,582 responses representing 114 countries/territories weighted for nonresponse and adjusted to basic demographics. We show consistent respondent demographics over time for many countries/territories. Machine Learning models trained on national and pooled global data verified known symptom indicators. COVID-like illness (CLI) signals were correlated with government benchmark data. Importantly, the best benchmarked UMD-CTIS signal uses a single survey item whereby respondents report on CLI in their local community. In regions with strained health infrastructure but active social media users, we show it is possible to define COVID-19 impact trajectories using a remote platform independent of local government resources. This syndromic surveillance public health tool is the largest global health survey to date and, with brief participant engagement, can provide meaningful, timely insights into the global COVID-19 pandemic at a local scale.

No abstract