Characteristics and result reporting of registered COVID-19 clinical trials of Chinese and Indian traditional medicine: A comparative analysis.

Objective: To assess the main characteristics and result reporting of registered COVID-19 interventional trials of traditional Chinese medicine and traditional Indian medicine. Materials and methods: We assessed design quality and result reporting of COVID-19 trials of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) and traditional Indian medicine (TIM) registered before 10 February 2021, respectively, on Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR) and Clinical Trial Registry-India (CTRI). Comparison groups included registered COVID-19 trials of conventional medicine conducted in China (WMC), India (WMI), and in other countries (WMO). Cox regression analysis was used to assess the association between time from trial onset to result reporting and trial characteristics. Results: The proportion of COVID-19 trials investigating traditional medicine was 33.7% (130/386) among trials registered on ChiCTR, and 58.6% (266/454) on CTRI. Planned sample sizes were mostly small in all COVID-19 trials (median 100, IQR: 50-200). The proportion of trials that were randomized was 75.4 and 64.8%, respectively, for the TCM and TIM trials. Blinding measures were used in 6.2% of the TCM trials, and 23.6% of the TIM trials. Cox regression analysis revealed that planned COVID-19 clinical trials of traditional medicine were less likely to have results reported than trials of conventional medicine (hazard ratio 0.713, 95% confidence interval: 0.541-0.939; p = 0.0162). Conclusion: There were considerable between-country and within-country differences in design quality, target sample size, trial participants, and reporting of trial results. Registered COVID-19 clinical trials of traditional medicine were less likely to report results than trials of conventional medicine.

Essential and Expendable: Migrant Domestic Workers and the COVID-19 Pandemic: PROD

In this article, we examine the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the labor conditions of domestic workers in the epicenter of the United States. We focus our analysis on the symbolic categorization of domestic work as “essential labor.” While domestic workers are lauded as heroes in public discourse, we argue that this symbolic recognition does not extend to material remuneration. Instead, we find that labor conditions better fit their categorization as expendable essential workers, meaning those whose essential labor is magnified during the pandemic but whose work remains materially undervalued. Data used in this article draw from observations of more than 30 hours of virtual town hall meetings on the pandemic hosted by migrant domestic worker advocacy groups in Los Angeles and New York.