ArticleBMC medical ethics2021
Challenges and proposed solutions in making clinical research on COVID-19 ethical: a status quo analysis across German research ethics committees.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Views on consent approaches used in emergency and critical care research: a rapid, systematic review.Trials · 2026Pooled it
- How to improve informed consent processes in clinical trials with cancer patients: a qualitative analysis of multidisciplinary experts' perspectives.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- PEARLES challenges and solutions to the implementation of clinical research responses to epidemics and pandemics: a scoping review.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Review
- Healthcare Professionals' Knowledge, Views, and Perceptions of the Roles and Functions of Research Ethics Committees: A Web-Based Cross-Sectional Survey.Journal of Korean medical science · 2025Article
- Exploring views of South African research ethics committees on pandemic preparedness and response during COVID-19.Research ethics · 2024Article
- A scoping review of ethics review processes during public health emergencies in Africa.BMC medical ethics · 2024Article
- Government Initiatives for Research Ethics During COVID-19 Pandemic in Korea.Journal of Korean medical science · 2024Article
- The readiness of the Asian research ethics committees in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic: A multi-country survey.F1000Research · 2024Article
- Article
- Informed consent and trial prioritization for clinical studies during the COVID-19 pandemic. Stakeholder experiences and viewpoints.PloS one · 2024Article
- The Fragility of Scientific Rigour and Integrity in "Sped up Science": Research Misconduct, Bias, and Hype and in the COVID-19 Pandemic.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2023Article
- Informed Consent in COVID-19-Research: An Ethical Analysis of Clinical Studies Performed during the Pandemic.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Adaptive, platform trials assessing therapies for hospitalized COVID-19 patients: Informed consent forms omitted a few important elements of information.Journal of global health · 2023Article
- Experience of the selected Ethics Committee of Pune city regarding the review of COVID-19 protocols during the pandemic.Perspectives in clinical researchArticle
- Challenges faced by ethics committee members in India during COVID-19 pandemic: A mixed-methods exploration.The Indian journal of medical researchArticle
- Impact of the COVID pandemic on functioning of the institutional ethics committee: A comparison study.Perspectives in clinical researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, the biomedical research community's attempt to focus the attention on fighting COVID-19, led to several challenges within the field of research ethics. However, we know little about the practical relevance of these challenges for Research Ethics Committees (RECs).
methodsWe conducted a qualitative survey across all 52 German RECs on the challenges and potential solutions with reviewing proposals for COVID-19 studies. We de-identified the answers and applied thematic text analysis for the extraction and synthesis of challenges and potential solutions that we grouped under established principles for clinical research ethics.
resultsWe received an overall response rate of 42%. The 22 responding RECs reported that they had assessed a total of 441 study proposals on COVID-19 until 21 April 2020. For the review of these proposals the RECs indicated a broad spectrum of challenges regarding (1) social value (e.g. lack of coordination), (2) scientific validity (e.g. provisional study planning), (3) favourable risk-benefit ratio (e.g. difficult benefit assessment), (4) informed consent (e.g. strict isolation measures), (5) independent review (e.g. lack of time), (6) fair selection of trial participants (e.g. inclusion of vulnerable groups), and (7) respect for study participants (e.g. data security). Mentioned solutions ranged from improved local/national coordination, over guidance on modified consent procedures, to priority setting across clinical studies.
conclusionsRECs are facing a broad spectrum of pressing challenges in reviewing COVID-19 studies. Some challenges for consent procedures are well known from research in intensive care settings but are further aggravated by infection measures. Other challenges such as reviewing several clinical studies at the same time that potentially compete for the recruitment of in-house COVID-19 patients are unique to the current situation. For some of the challenges the proposed solutions in our survey could relatively easy be translated into practice. Others need further conceptual and empirical research. Our findings together with the increasing body of literature on COVID-19 research ethics, and further stakeholder engagement should inform the development of hands-on guidance for researchers, funders, RECs, and further oversight bodies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.