ArticlePloS one2021
Ethical review of COVID-19 research in the Netherlands; a mixed-method evaluation among medical research ethics committees and investigators.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sustained and discontinued operational changes to ethics committees in the post-pandemic era: a qualitative study in Kenya.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the first standardized registry of approved research studies by the research ethics committees in Ecuador.BMC medical ethics · 2025Observational
- Ethical issues and the role of the ethics committees during COVID-19 research in pandemic era: a focus on an Italian ethics committee.Frontiers in public health · 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
- Article
- 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
- Primary health care research in COVID-19: analysis of the protocols reviewed by the ethics committee of IDIAPJGol, Catalonia.BMC primary care · 2023Article
- Key ethical issues encountered during COVID-19 research: a thematic analysis of perspectives from South African research ethics committees.BMC medical ethics · 2023Article
- Revising the legislation of Ethics Committees to ease biomedical research in humans across the world: lessons from the COVID-19 emergency.Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis · 2022Article
- Challenges faced by ethics committee members in India during COVID-19 pandemic: A mixed-methods exploration.The Indian journal of medical 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDuring the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic there was an urgent need for accelerated review of COVID-19 research by Medical Research Ethics Committees (MRECs). In the Netherlands this led to the implementation of so-called 'fast-track-review-procedures' (FTRPs) to enable a swift start of urgent and relevant research. The objective of this study is to evaluate FTRPs of MRECs in the Netherlands during the COVID-19 pandemic and to compare them with the regular review procedures (RRPs). METHODS AND
findingsAn explanatory sequential mixed method study was conducted. Online questionnaires and four group interviews were conducted among MREC representatives and investigators of COVID-19 research. In addition, data from a national research registration system was requested. Main outcome measures are differences in timelines, quality of the review and satisfaction between FTRPs and RRPs. The total number of review days was shorter in FTRP (median 10.5) compared to RRPs (median 98.0). Review days attributable to the MRECs also declined in FTRPs (median 8.0 versus 50.0). This shortening can be explained by installing ad hoc (sub)committees, full priority given to COVID-19 research, regular research put on hold, online review meetings and administrative leniency. The shorter timelines did not affect the perceived quality of the review and ethical and legal aspects were not weighted differently. Both MREC representatives and investigators were generally satisfied with the review of COVID-19 research. Weaknesses identified were the lack of overview of COVID-19 research and central collaboration and coordination, the delay of review of regular research, and limited reachability of secretariats.
conclusionsThis study shows that accelerated review is feasible during emergency situations. We did not find evidence that review quality was compromised and both investigators and MRECs were content with the FTRP. To improve future medical ethical review during pandemic situations and beyond, distinguishing main and side issues, working digitally, and (inter)national collaboration and coordination are important.
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.