Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34281535›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2021

Challenges and proposed solutions in making clinical research on COVID-19 ethical: a status quo analysis across German research ethics committees.

Alice Faust, Anna Sierawska, Katharina Krüger, Anne Wisgalla, Joerg Hasford, Daniel Strech

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.5field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Alice FaustQUEST Center, Berlin Institute of Health (BIH), Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5575-6495
Anna SierawskaQUEST Center, Berlin Institute of Health (BIH), Berlin, Germany.
Katharina KrügerAssociation of Medical Ethics Committees in Germany (AKEK, Arbeitskreis Der Medizinischen Ethik-Kommissionen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland E.V.), Berlin, Germany.
Anne WisgallaAssociation of Medical Ethics Committees in Germany (AKEK, Arbeitskreis Der Medizinischen Ethik-Kommissionen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland E.V.), Berlin, Germany.
Joerg HasfordAssociation of Medical Ethics Committees in Germany (AKEK, Arbeitskreis Der Medizinischen Ethik-Kommissionen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland E.V.), Berlin, Germany.
Daniel StrechQUEST Center, Berlin Institute of Health (BIH), Berlin, Germany. alice.faust@charite.de.
Berlin Institute of Health at Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DEGerman Medical Association · DEZimmer Biomet (Netherlands) · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

COVID-19Ethics Committees, ResearchEthics, ResearchHumansPandemicsSARS-CoV-2COVID-19Research ethicsResearch ethics committees

Identifiers

PMID34281535
PMCPMC8287116
OpenAlexW3186471865

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.