ArticlePloS one2024
Research ethics review during the COVID-19 pandemic: An international study.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Responses to Commentaries on "Ethics as if Your Life Depended on It".Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2026Article
- Recruitment of healthy third-trimester pregnant women and their newborns into a prospective dental study at a primary health care clinic.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- Implications of COVID-19 Restrictions on the Ethics and Methods of a Multi-Site Study on Alcohol and Other Drug (AOD) Use Treatment among Men in South Africa.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2026Article
- Decision Letters from a Kyrgyz Research Ethics Committee (2018-2022): An Empirical Review of Transparency, Rigor, and Communication.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2026Article
- Sustained and discontinued operational changes to ethics committees in the post-pandemic era: a qualitative study in Kenya.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Adapting research ethics for global health crises: a systematic analysis of COVID-19 pandemic research guidelines and reflections on their post-pandemic implications.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- How to conduct an individual participant data meta-analysis in response to an emerging pathogen: Lessons learned from Zika and COVID-19.Research synthesis methods · 2026Review
- Health Research Ethics in Southern Africa: Building Capacity and Cultivating Excellence.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2025Article
- Advancing Doctoral and Postdoctoral International Bioethics Training Programs Supported by the D43 National Institutes of Health (NIH) Fogarty Mechanism.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2025Article
- Perspectives of Artificial Intelligence Use for In-House Ethics Checks of Journal Submissions.Journal of Korean medical science · 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
- Conducting non-pandemic research during the COVID-19 pandemic: A case study and documentary review.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
- Exploring views of South African research ethics committees on pandemic preparedness and response during COVID-19.Research ethics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Research ethics review committees (ERCs) worldwide faced daunting challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic. There was a need to balance rapid turnaround with rigorous evaluation of high-risk research protocols in the context of considerable uncertainty. This study explored the experiences and performance of ERCs during the pandemic. We conducted an anonymous, cross-sectional, global online survey of chairs (or their delegates) of ERCs who were involved in the review of COVID-19-related research protocols after March 2020. The survey ran from October 2022 to February 2023 and consisted of 50 items, with opportunities for descriptive responses to open-ended questions. Two hundred and three participants [130 from high-income countries (HICs) and 73 from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)] completed our survey. Respondents came from diverse entities and organizations from 48 countries (19 HICs and 29 LMICs) in all World Health Organization regions. Responses show little of the increased global funding for COVID-19 research was allotted to the operation of ERCs. Few ERCs had pre-existing internal policies to address operation during public health emergencies, but almost half used existing guidelines. Most ERCs modified existing procedures or designed and implemented new ones but had not evaluated the success of these changes. Participants overwhelmingly endorsed permanently implementing several of them. Few ERCs added new members but non-member experts were consulted; quorum was generally achieved. Collaboration among ERCs was infrequent, but reviews conducted by external ERCs were recognized and validated. Review volume increased during the pandemic, with COVID-19-related studies being prioritized. Most protocol reviews were reported as taking less than three weeks. One-third of respondents reported external pressure on their ERCs from different stakeholders to approve or reject specific COVID-19-related protocols. ERC members faced significant challenges to keep their committees functioning during the pandemic. Our findings can inform ERC approaches towards future public health emergencies. To our knowledge, this is the first international, COVID-19-related study of its kind.
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.