Ethical frameworks in clinical research processes during COVID-19: a scoping review.
COVID-19
ethics (see medical ethics)
medical ethics
Journal
BMJ open
ISSN: 2044-6055
Titre abrégé: BMJ Open
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101552874
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
23 07 2021
23 07 2021
Historique:
entrez:
24
7
2021
pubmed:
25
7
2021
medline:
30
7
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic there have been significant developments in research, its conduct and the supporting ethical framework. While many protocols have been delayed, halted or modified, other research efforts have been accelerated, generating controversy. The goal of this paper is to determine the rates of references surrounding the ethical oversight of research as reported in current COVID-19-related research publications. Scoping review. Population-based observational or interventional studies from December 2019 to May 2020 with sample size of two or more. Studies were searched through electronic databases including Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials. Eligibility criteria included participants within published studies who tested positive for COVID-19. Data were extracted and charting methods included taking note of references to ethical frameworks, institutional review board (IRB), ethics committee (EC) or research ethics board (REB) involvement, consent processes, and other variables. 11 556 articles were screened, with 656 included in the final analysis. References to ethics were present in 530 (80.8%) studies, with 491 (74.8%) involving IRB/ECs/REBs and 126 (19.2%) not referencing ethics. Consent processes were outlined in 201 (30.6%) studies, with 198 (30.2%) reporting that they obtained consent waivers, however, 257 (39.2%) did not mention consent at all. Differences (p<0.001) in ethics-related references were apparent when analysed by continent, publication type, sample size and IF. The majority of published articles pertaining to COVID-19 research made mention of ethical considerations, however, national and regional variations in research ethics review requirements introduce heterogeneity between studies and raise important questions about the conduct of scientific research during global public emergencies. Open Science Framework: https://osfio/z67wb.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34301656
pii: bmjopen-2020-047076
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-047076
pmc: PMC8313312
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e047076Informations de copyright
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: None declared.
Références
Lancet. 2020 Apr 11;395(10231):1225-1228
pubmed: 32178769
Eur J Cancer. 2007 Sep;43(14):2124-33
pubmed: 17714938
Cancer Res. 2005 Dec 15;65(24):11597-604
pubmed: 16357170
Med Res Rev. 2021 Mar;41(2):725-738
pubmed: 33174617
J Med Ethics. 2020 Jul;46(7):419-420
pubmed: 32601258
JAMA. 2013 Nov 27;310(20):2191-4
pubmed: 24141714
Ann Intern Med. 2018 Oct 2;169(7):467-473
pubmed: 30178033
Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2016 Aug 15;3:74-79
pubmed: 27822565
J Am Coll Dent. 2014 Summer;81(3):4-13
pubmed: 25951677