ArticleFrontiers in public health2025
Ethical issues and the role of the ethics committees during COVID-19 research in pandemic era: a focus on an Italian ethics committee.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
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
Independent Research Ethics Committees (RECs) are responsible for protecting the rights and safety of participants involved in research studies. They also promote the values of research ethics and ensure the quality of clinical studies. In emergencies, we expect a significant increase in research activities but it is crucial to maintain both the quality of studies and respect for participants' rights. At the onset of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, the World Health Organization recommended an "expedited" approach to REC approvals. This was intended to streamline and optimize review procedures to prevent delays in research that is critical for responding to the global emergency. The authors evaluated the activity of the Inter-company Ethics Committee (IEC) of Turin, Italy, from January 2020 to December 2022 comparing COVID-19-related protocols with those that were not related to COVID-19. Statistical analyses were applied to find if there were statistically significant differences in variables' distributions between the two groups of studies. The characteristics of the protocols (total 1,667), including study design, funding, and enrollment of minors, were analyzed. Statistical differences were found for three variables: study type, financial support, and distribution of revised protocols by applicants' medical specialties. The findings underscore the need for careful attention to ethical principles during emergencies, especially given the large number of projects reviewed by the EC. Various challenges were faced, including the demand for expedited approval of proposed studies, the necessity of recognizing the social value of COVID-19 studies while ensuring proper planning and scientific validity, the need to review studies unrelated to COVID-19, and the obligation to protect the dignity and rights of research participants. It is essential to ensure that the standards for ethical review remain uncompromised.
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.